Lord Maginnis of Drumglass

Kenneth Wiggins Maginnis, Esquire, having been created Baron Maginnis of Drumglass, of Carnteel in the County of Tyrone, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Molyneaux of Killead and the Lord Rogan.

Lord Adebowale

Victor Olufemi Adebowale, CBE, having been created Baron Adebowale, of Thornes in the County of West Yorkshire, for life--Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Listowel and the Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Police Officers: Retirement

Lord Janner of Braunstone: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	By whom the consideration of encouragement to suitable police officers to delay their retirement is being carried out; and when such consideration is expected to be concluded and its results made public.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the consultants Capita were engaged on 11th September to compile a report to review options and make recommendations as to how suitable officers might be encouraged to delay their retirement. Capita has now completed its report. The results will be given full consideration as part of the police reform process and will be published in due course.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that police officers who retire after 30 years' service gain very substantial financial benefits which they lose if they postpone their retirement? Does this not mean that far too many police officers are forced into retirement at just the time they are most experienced, often at the age of 48 which many noble Lords will regard as extremely young? At a time when so many police officers are being transferred to security duties, when other police jobs are not being done properly and when nearly every police force in the country is understaffed and overstretched, does my noble friend agree that, surely, this antique, grotesque and archaic rule should be changed?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, my noble friend puts it in graphic terms, but that was the central purpose of asking Capita to have a look at the situation. Capita has interviewed the key people involved, stakeholders and the officers concerned, and--I blush when I say it--has held focus groups involving volunteer police constables and sergeants. It has also held discussions with key people on the very issue of human resources. There is a disincentive to police officers to remain. After 30 years they can take their full pension and there is a disincentive in not doing so. We want to encourage more flexibility and value for money. However, I must take issue with one point raised by my noble friend. The police are doing the job correctly, although they are a bit thin on the ground in certain parts of the country at the moment for reasons that we all understand.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the recruitment of police officers across many police forces is below Home Office targets? Does he also accept that it is not only a question of recruitment but also of retention of officers? Will he consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that in these circumstances we should not lose the most valuable officers, particularly when they come to retire? Is this the right policy at the present time, bearing in mind that recruitment is difficult?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I said to my noble friend that the implication of carrying out the review is that the Government accept that there need to be changes in the policy across a wide field, not just the age of retirement but the pension itself, so that they can make the best use of those officers who wish to remain in the police service but who see a disadvantage in doing so. The noble Lord is quite right. Police recruitment last year was up by just over 1,300, but in total it is still lower than in 1997. Under the crime fighting fund we expect to recruit 9,000 officers over a three-year period and to that extent we are on track for an increase. However, there is a problem to be dealt with and the review is part of that.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, does the Minister agree that policing on the streets is clearly better served by younger officers, but in the investigation of murder and fraud there is a pool of talent, skill and experience which is lost when people retire? Does he agree that one reason for retirement is the silly rule about tenure introduced in the past few years, which I understand is to be abolished, whereby police officers are transferred out of specialist departments for no reason other than the fact that they have been there for a number of years? Some chief officers are more enlightened than others. Does the Minister agree that where people have investigative skills in specialist departments they should be retained and encouraged to stay in the job?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I freely admit that I am not supremely qualified to answer detailed questions about tenure, but I am aware that when it was introduced in the West Midlands some years ago it caused considerable difficulties for many officers. All things are good ideas at the time they are introduced, but it is a matter of how they work in practice. Some of the 43 chief constables--I am aware that my noble friend believes that there are too many of them--have decided to change the situation. That matter is best left in their hands.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can my noble friend be clearer on the date when the consultants will report their findings? Perhaps I may request that they do not rush into it. Although there are advantages in encouraging officers to stay on, there are also disadvantages for the line of promotion and so on. I declare an interest in that in the next two months my son, who has served in the police force for 30 years--for two years before that he was a cadet--is to retire. It is interesting that I am able to see my son retire at a comparatively young age.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a problem sometimes in the way that an organisation is structured with ceilings and promotion blockage. That is in no one's interest--either of those doing the blocking or those who are seeking promotion. Such a situation requires flexibility in the use of the available human resources.
	I regret that I cannot give a date. The issue is being considered at the moment. The House will expect to see police reform legislation during this Session. This exercise will form part of that process. The issue of police reform goes much wider than retirement and pensions and is highly complex. We have this opportunity, and proposals will be before the House during this parliamentary Session.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister say whether in other parts of the public sector where there are known to be shortages of skills and experience similar possibilities are being explored?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, when I answered a similar Question on 12th July I referred to the report from the Performance and Innovation Unit, Winning the Generation Game. When the report was published it made clear that in this country, between the age of 50 and retirement, there were 3 million economically inactive people. That is an enormous waste of this country's greatest asset, which is people's willingness and capacity to work. It happens right across the public and private sectors. The matter is being actively considered throughout Whitehall in the different departments as well as in the private sector. There is no one magic solution. If there is one issue to be dealt with, it is what I consider--I am speaking for myself at the moment--to be the sometimes archaic Inland Revenue rules which cause difficulties for people. That issue is being addressed following the report of the Performance and Innovation Unit.

Economic Growth

Lord Northbrook: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	To what limit they would be prepared to allow a budget deficit to expand to maintain economic growth in the United Kingdom.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, sound public finances are essential for economic stability and growth. The Government's fiscal rules have put the public finances on a sound footing to allow them to support growth in the face of adverse shocks. Fully consistent with the fiscal rules, the 2001 Budget projections showed modest borrowing of 1 per cent of GDP in the medium term to finance capital investment in priority public services.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. In the short term, the Government's surplus will weaken due to the weakening UK economy prior to 11th September, foot and mouth, and after the terrorist outrage of 11th September. In the longer term--

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Northbrook: --the finances will weaken because of independent projections. City projections are forecasting a deficit by 2004-5. The golden rule--

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Northbrook: --restricts the Government's level of borrowing.

Noble Lords: Question!

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, the Home Secretary stated that he wishes for decreased spending. The Prime Minister has asked for higher taxation. This is very confusing. Can I ask which approach the Minister favours?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have never pretended that public finances in this country are immune from economic changes, either in our own economy or in the world economy. When we come to the Pre-Budget Report next month the noble Lord will have an answer to his Question. What I shall not do is to give a running commentary on the public finances of this country.

Lord Taverne: My Lords, if the so-called war leads to extra expenditure which may be a temporary strain, do the Government agree that the key answer will be borrowing at the lowest possible terms? Will the Government look again at Keynes's work, How to Pay for the War, which the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky--I do not think that he is here today--described as perhaps his greatest achievement?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have great pleasure in agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in his absence. The general theory has a good deal to be said for it and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, referred to it in the introduction to his question. Of course borrowing is one of our options, but it would depend on what kind of expenditure is involved as regards both military and humanitarian aid for Afghanistan.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, can the noble Lord reflect on the contribution or otherwise made to national productivity by the Inland Revenue? The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to the Revenue in a response to the previous Question.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has couched his question in uncharacteristically neutral terms and thus I do not know whether he is referring to the malign influence of the Inland Revenue or its benign influence. Perhaps we should discuss this point at some other time because it does not follow on from the Question tabled on the Order Paper.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if we were to enter a serious recession, would the Government feel constrained by the 3 per cent rule imposed under the Maastricht Treaty, which would prevent our public borrowing from exceeding 3 per cent of GDP?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Stability and Growth Pact, to which I believe my noble friend Lord Stoddart has referred, requires that the United Kingdom, as a member of ECOFIN, should submit a convergence programme. We are committed to avoiding excessive deficits. In return for that commitment, we take part in the surveillance programme, both at official meetings and in ministerial meetings at ECOFIN. Furthermore, the commitment that our public finances should be held close to balance or in surplus would be our policy whether or not we were members of the European Union.

Lord Peston: My Lords, can I ask my noble friend to remind noble Lords that the Chancellor is committed to a fiscal policy which balances current expenditure with current income over the cycle? That means that, in a recession, the finances can go into deficit as long as an equivalent surplus is achieved during a boom. Incidentally, that is precisely Keynes's view of the matter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Peston for reminding us of what was Keynes's opinion and what is the Government's position. As he has rightly pointed out, both say the same: the Government will use the public finances as appropriate; that is, to boost demand when the economy falls below trend and to dampen demand when the economy rises above it. That Keynesian principle is sensible and is reflected in government policy.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, perhaps I may offer the Minister a slightly different interpretation of the public finances. During the Government's first term of office, when they largely followed the inherited economic plans of the previous administration, they generated a surplus of around £34 billion. However, is it not right that during the Government's second term--the current term--they are planning to borrow £34 billion? Those plans were made before the events of 11th September. Does the Minister agree that that is a good definition of boom and bust?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept the premise set out by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. During the first two years of our administration, we did not follow the previous government's economic plans; rather, we followed their spending plans. That is quite different. Over that time, we made plans for and began to increase expenditure on essential public services, paying particular attention to capital expenditure and investment, which had been so sadly neglected by the Conservative government.

Teacher Vacancies

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many teacher vacancies were recorded at the beginning of the autumn term.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, a telephone survey of 1,500 schools taken in September indicated that there were about 2,000 vacancies in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Does she agree that the situation is rather worse than that indicated by her response? A large number of vacancies have been filled by teachers who are being asked to teach subjects for which they are not trained. Ultimately, that will not help to raise standards and certainly is not good for children.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I should make it clear that the definition we used for this purpose covered full-time appointments that had been advertised for at least one term. That should be put on the record so that the point is made absolutely clear.
	The noble Baroness will know that we have not collected information on the shortage of teaching provision by subject since 1997, when we learnt that 82 per cent of secondary school lessons were being taught by those with appropriate qualifications. We are investigating whether we should now conduct a further survey, bearing in mind the need to ensure that we do not increase the load on teachers. Although we know that vacancy rates are high in certain subjects--maths at 2.1 per cent and ICT at 2.8 per cent--teacher shortages for the rest of the main subjects stand at under 2 per cent. We have looked carefully at the applicants coming into PGCE and other courses this year, recognising that there has been an increase in applications for those subjects where previously we had shortages.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the survey conducted during September showed that there are over 1,000 teacher vacancies in primary schools? In view of that, and in view of the continuing problems regarding the retention of teachers in primary schools, can she explain to the House why this year the department has seen fit to cut by 600 the number of training places available for primary education?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the figure for primary school teacher vacancies is indeed 1,000, which represents 0.6 per cent of the places available for teachers. We are not complacent. Some 6,000 more teacher training places are now being provided than was the case 10 years ago. Furthermore, we have introduced a raft of measures, including school-based training places for mature graduates who wish to change careers. The number of such places available has been trebled to 2,250. We have funded 1,800 refresher courses per year to cater for returning teachers. We have put in place welcome-back bonuses, we have changed the rules on pension schemes and we are allowing more time for teachers trained overseas to study for their UK qualifications. All of these measures form part of the strategy to attract and retain teachers.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, has the Minister given any consideration to the enormous problem of teacher vacancies in London, in particular as it relates to housing? Teachers cannot afford housing in London. Has she considered whether the old tied house system might be a help in London? The tied house system helped 19th century education. Teachers cannot afford to live in London and it is no use simply employing Australians.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the teacher vacancy rate in London currently stands at 4.3 per cent. I agree with the noble Lord that that is above the average and is thus a matter for concern. We have put in place the starter home initiative for teachers. I am not sure whether the teachers I know well would fancy the idea of a tied house, but certainly teachers are very interested in the starter home initiative, which will help some 3,500 teachers to buy their first home this year.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that reducing the burden of bureaucracy would help to attract more people into the teaching profession? Over 70 documents have been issued to schools since teachers returned after the summer holidays. In view of that, does the Minister further agree that the burden of paperwork is still far too heavy? The department has not yet succeeded in appropriately reducing that burden.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that a review is currently being undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers, in conjunction with the teaching unions, to look at the levels of bureaucracy in schools. There are three aspects to the bureaucracy burden: first, the DfES--although we do endeavour to reduce the burden; secondly, local education authorities and others; and, thirdly, many teachers undertake roles that have nothing to do with teaching. Examples of that are: collecting in money; filling paint pots; and answering the telephone. We need to find different ways of reducing the bureaucratic burden on teachers. Increasing the number of support staff in schools is important and we are committed to doing that.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that 2,000 vacancies for a profession employing some 450,000 people does not seem to be a high vacancy rate, especially when compared with some other industries and services? In the context of this Question, what progress is being made to attract more men into the teaching profession, in particular into primary school education?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to point out that the vacancy rate of 0.6 per cent compares favourably with the latest government statistics showing an average vacancy rate of 1.5 per cent. Nevertheless, every teacher not in place in a classroom has a dramatic impact on the children so affected. I would not wish to underestimate that problem. It is certainly true that there are issues in regard to men coming into primary education, although there are more issues about men coming into early years. If the noble Lord has been watching the TV advertisements that we have been putting out recently, he will have seen that we have specifically produced role models of young men coming into early years as a way of attracting them.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in this time of an acknowledged deficit of full-time teachers, to what extent are supply teachers filling the gap? To what extent are our children not being educated?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, supply teachers play an important role. We are working with supply teacher organisations to increase the qualifications and training of supply teachers. There is no doubt that for some schools there are real difficulties. I do not wish to under-estimate that. We are doing all that we can to increase the numbers of people returning to the profession, coming into the profession and staying within the profession. I have outlined some of the measures. I would be happy to outline more, but I do not wish to take up the time of the House today. We hope that all these measures together will address the problem.

Lamb Consumption: Safety

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What, in the aftermath of the failure of the study commissioned into BSE, is the current advice on the safety of eating lamb, especially in relation to food given to babies.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government set up the independent Food Standards Agency to advise on food safety. The agency's advice continues to be that while consumers should be aware of the theoretical risk of BSE in sheep, it does not advise them to avoid consumption of lamb. This applies equally to all sections of the population, including babies.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Does he agree that the Government set up the Food Standards Agency--with a great deal of ballyhoo and taxpayers' money--and then proceeded to give it the wrong answers to tell consumers? Does he further agree that it was a marvellous example of double talk when his noble friend Lord Whitty said in your Lordships' House last Monday that no advice has been given to consumers not to eat sheep meat? Will the Minister, please, now tell consumers in a straightforward way whether or not it is dangerous? Will he relieve the fears of many parents about baby food? While he is doing that and giving a straight answer, will he also apologise for the whole fiasco?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the FSA was not responsible for the commissioning of the research. That was the responsibility of DEFRA. So far as concerns giving straight advice to the public, the very reason the Government set up the Food Standards Agency was because of what happened with BSE under the previous government. The FSA has said--and it reiterated its position at a board meeting on Monday--that the risk of BSE in sheep remains theoretical and that it is not advising against the consumption of lamb. That was not the response of my noble friend Lord Whitty but the response of the Food Standards Agency. That advice applies equally to meat used for infants as for any other section of the population.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, given the mistake that came to light last week, does my noble friend the Minister believe that the FSA is building public confidence in the safety of food?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is probably referring to the original comment made by the chair of the Food Standards Agency on the "Today" programme, when he said that all lamb in baby food is sourced from outside the UK. Within a very short time he had made clear that he had misremembered the fact on that broadcast. The fact is that most, but not all, lamb is sourced from outside the UK. Sir John corrected himself as quickly as he possibly could. So far as concerns the performance of the agency, it has a very important role in enhancing public confidence in food in this country. It has made a steady start. Building confidence is a long-term process, but the work that it has done, the surveys of public attitudes to food and food safety, the publication of a comprehensive food labelling action plan and the involvement of members of the public in its work show that it has made a substantial start.

Lord Geraint: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that Welsh lamb is the best meat in the world? Does he agree that we should congratulate the Welsh Development Agency on its excellent promotional work in persuading the British housewife and others to buy our produce?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I shall, of course, have to refer to the Food Standards Agency for advice. However, as I am hoping to go to Wales tonight, I shall certainly take advantage of the noble Lord's advice.

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, if I understood the Minister correctly, he said that most of the lamb we eat comes from abroad. Does he not consider this to be a disgrace when so many of our farmers are in difficulties? Can he do anything to persuade people to eat more home-grown lamb and less imported lamb?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lady may have misunderstood me. I was referring to the consumption of lamb used in the production of infant food. So far as concerns the consumption of mutton and lamb generally in this country, my understanding is that in 2000, 395,000 tonnes of beef and sheep meat were produced for home consumption, with exports of 134,000 tonnes. The position is a lot better than the noble Lady suggested.

Earl Howe: My Lords, taking the Question back to baby food, can the Minister say whether any lamb that is processed in the UK for baby food is sourced from any country where scrapie in sheep is endemic?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, not as far as I am aware, although I shall follow up that matter with the noble Earl. We obviously have to be concerned that imported lamb which is used in products in this country is as safe as possible.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, given that the FSA is an independent body and ought not to be susceptible to manipulation, is it subject to any sanction by the Government for the advice that it tenders?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is worth reiterating the point that Sir John corrected the misleading statement that he made on the "Today" programme within a very short period of time. Anyone can seek redress from the agency through its own published complaints procedure. Complainants can also ask, through their MP, for their case to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and, of course, it is always subject to judicial review. The chair, deputy chair and board members can be removed from office by Ministers who make their appointments for any serious failure by the agency. But, in general, these matters are best discussed through proper dialogue between government and the Food Standards Agency. As I said, my own view is that the agency's performance over the first few years has been satisfactory. It is making progress in ensuring that public confidence is enhanced in food that is produced in this country. We shall encourage the FSA to continue that work.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, given the implications for both health and the British farming industry, is the Minister satisfied that the amount of money given to this research by the Government--some £1,000 per week--is sufficient? The implications of anything affecting the sheep flock are huge.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think that the thousands of pounds per week refers to a specific project of research. My understanding is that the Government as a whole are funding 140 projects, which are looking at the whole issue of BSE and TSEs. Of that funding, DEFRA provides £17 million and my own department £4 million. There is a substantial research element. Of course, in the light of what has happened in the past few days, I have no doubt that SEAC and the Food Standards Agency will be providing more advice to the Government on research and what needs to happen. We shall pay very careful attention to that advice.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Amos will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. After that, my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on Northern Ireland. The Statements are likely to be taken after the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield in the first debate.

Public Service

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: rose to call attention to the concept of service, especially in the public sector; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have put their names on the list of speakers. There is clearly much wisdom and experience on which to draw. I particularly look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Moser, Lord MacGregor, Lord Chan and Lord Condon.
	A few years ago, I was speaking to the distinguished headmaster of one of our distinguished schools. I lamented that his school, which in previous generations had produced a great number of ordinands for the Church of England, no longer did so. "Oh, Richard", he replied, "the whole concept of service has gone". That phrase has haunted me ever since, and in part lies behind this debate. Yet I hope that we may be able to go beyond a mere lament to ask some critical questions. Has the concept of service in our society really gone? If it has, in what way is that a loss? If it is a loss, and is regretted, what might be done to recover it?
	In tabling this Motion, I had in mind three inter-related aspects. The first is the concept of service generally which might motivate people in both their private and their public lives, their voluntary activity and their careers. The second is the voluntary sector. The third is the public sector--in particular focusing on whether we need to do more as a society to value those in the public sector who have traditionally seen their role as one of public service.
	Perhaps I may refer briefly to the concept of public service generally. I take for granted--not only from a Christian perspective, to which it is fundamental, but from other perspectives, both religious and non-religious--that the desire to be of some use to other people is fundamental to our human nature. People who live only for themselves are pretty unattractive; we do not choose them as either friends or colleagues.
	Self-interest is also part of our nature. Without it, we should not survive for more than a few hours. But so is altruism. It is that mixture that makes us what we are. A civilised society, let alone a Christian one, will encourage the altruistic side of our nature. A settled cynicism which assumes that people always act out of their own narrow or short-term interest saps the human spirit and undermines the human community.
	The desire to help others to be of some use can be expressed in many ways, through a person's whole career or through a neighbourly act of kindness within the family or in the wider community. The voluntary sector is one important area of our society where the concept of service finds fruitful expression. The year 2001 is the Year of the Volunteer. It is said that 25 per cent of the population take part in one piece of voluntary work a year. Over 50,000 people are involved in running charity shops. In Oxfordshire alone, there are more than 2,000 voluntary organisations.
	Yet voluntary organisations often experience difficulties in recruitment. In many families both husband and wife work. People work very long hours and, understandably, when they come home they want to see something of their family or simply recover for the next week. But there is also straight, old-fashioned hedonism. People are out to enjoy themselves. Today, we have the wonderful addition of life which we know as the "third age". People retire early and live into their 80s. They may have 30 years with time, money and health--a situation that has never previously arisen in human history. It is a wonderful time for voluntary activity. But I am not sure that volunteers in their third age are coming forward in the numbers that were once expected or hoped for. Driving along a few years ago, I saw a couple of camper vans with large placards on the back. They read: "We're too old to work, we're too young to die. So off we go, just Mum and I"!
	I like to enjoy myself as much as anyone else, but a hedonistic society is neither healthy nor civilised. There used to be a sense of noblesse oblige. I recall the wonderful remark by the mother of Sir Alec Douglas Home about her son:
	"I think it's so good of Alec to do Prime Minister".
	There is less noblesse around; and there is certainly less sense of obligation.
	A good society is one in which voluntary service in the community is encouraged in our schools and forms part of the ethos of our universities. Not only is it promoted by Churches and religious bodies; it is also seen by businesses as being important. I am glad to say that among some of our more enlightened companies that is now the case. It is a form of service that can find particular expression in the third age when people have experience and wisdom as well as having some energy left.
	The state does not, should not and cannot respond to the whole range of human needs. Voluntary bodies have a crucial role to play. They can be sensitive to local conditions. They can innovate. They can campaign on behalf of the vulnerable. I shall not say more about this aspect of the expression of service because I know that a number of your Lordships with great experience of contributing to society in various ways will be sharing their wisdom with us.
	I now turn to the third aspect of this subject; namely, the concept of service in the public sector. The ideal of a public service ethic has its roots in the late 19th century as a result of the influence of a group of dons who saw the university as a training ground for service for the common good. That tradition lives on. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, was one of those who wrote to me saying that they wanted to take part in the debate but were unfortunately prevented from doing so because of business abroad. The noble Lord gave me permission to quote his words:
	"Public service . . . is a high and honourable calling and the sense of being in the public service, or the service of the public, gives meaning and value to the work that the public servant does, however apparently humdrum it may be".
	Although many people who work in the public sector still feel the strength of that ideal, there is also evidence to the contrary. Someone told me that people now move into the Civil Service for a few years simply to add something more to their CV.
	Clearly, the move to privatisation in some spheres of the public service has been unsettling to people personally, as well as calling into question the public service ethos. But what concerns me even more is the denigration that some sectors of the public service have received in recent decades. Those whom we expect to pick up the pieces of a broken society--teachers and social workers--have been caricatured. Civil servants are lampooned; and now doctors are receiving a great deal of criticism.
	People who work in the public sector on the whole receive less financial reward than those in the private spheres. In the past, the compensation for that was the respect in which they were held by the public, which in turn reinforced their desire to serve the public as professionally as possible. When there is nothing but constant criticism, something fundamental to our society is being eroded. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, again:
	"Politicians and members of the media need to be reminded that public service is an honourable calling and that if the pride of public servants in their calling and in their profession is too greatly undermined, it will not be just the public servants who suffer. Those who depend on the work of the public services and the body politic at large will also be the losers".
	I am not ideologically opposed to privatisation. Clearly, it has brought about and can continue to bring about not only greater efficiency but a much greater service to the public. Furthermore, I do not accept that those who work in the private sector are motivated only by the prospect of greater financial reward. The recent work of Professor Charles Handy indicates clearly that businessmen, like all human beings, need a larger purpose than simply making money.
	The American retailing group, Dayton Hudson, has as its mission statement:
	"The business of business is serving society, not just making money. Profit is our reward for serving society well. Indeed, profit is the means and measure of our service--not an end in itself".
	That, I believe, gets matters the right way round.
	At the same time, there is clearly some truth in the claim that those who work for state-run bureaucracies are also motivated by self-interest, like all of us, and that the bureaucracies themselves are an interest group. So there is not an absolute divide between the private sector and the public sector.
	Nevertheless, if we take the paradigm case of the armed services (and that description is itself significant) or the police, or the core of the Civil Service, these will always remain in the public sphere. Their ethos needs to continue to be one of service to society and they need to continue to be bodies which can be both respected and trusted. Of course, there need also to be proper systems of accountability, quality control, audit and so on. But none of this can be a substitute for an environment in which there are high standards of professionalism motivated by a desire to serve and resulting in a sense of pride to be working in the service of society.
	In New York recently people have been clapping fire crew and the police in the streets. That stands in sharp contrast to the declining esteem in which public servants now appear to be held in the United Kingdom. Pay is, of course, a factor. When differentials with the private sector are too great people will either move out or not be recruited at all, as is the case at the moment with teachers. During the 1970s I was chairman of a Church of England comprehensive school. It was a time when, historically, for the first time ever, the salaries of teachers were comparable with those of doctors. Whenever we advertised a post, we had a large number of highly qualified and well motivated applicants. Unfortunately, the same point cannot be made now. In the nursing profession more and more nurses are having to be recruited from overseas. Public servants, like the rest of us, need to be appreciated. The obvious indicator of the extent to which we in society are willing to value those in the public sector is by ensuring that their salaries do not get too far out of kilter with those working in the private sphere.
	In prisons, education and the National Health Service, various schemes have been tried in recent decades to improve efficiency such as contracting out, quasi and internal markets, rights, entitlements and citizen's charters. Much of this is salutary and effective. Nevertheless, they cannot be a substitute for an ethos which encourages a high standard of professionalism out of a sense of service to the community and resulting in a sense of pride to be serving in that way. Whatever else may be done to ensure an efficient and accountable public sector, moral values remain fundamental.
	The noble Lord, Lord Plant, kindly sent me a copy of a substantial and philosophically finely honed lecture of his, for which I am grateful, in which he states:
	"I did not find it very surprising . . . when the unilateral alteration of teachers' contracts in the mid 1980s led to teachers in state schools not being willing to give up hours out of school to provide sports etc. The rational calculation is that if I am required to stick to a contract as a constraint on my behaviour as a member of a producer interest group, then I will stick to the contract no more and no less. An appeal was made by the then Secretary of State to the professionalism of teachers but that was pretty well bound to fall on stony ground when the whole thrust of the reform had been to treat professionals as a self interested interest group rather than animated by a service culture . . . If all human motivation is reduced to the rational calculation of interest we could certainly end up with a contractual society, but it will be a very attenuated vision of a good society if people motivated on the assumptions behind the model worked to contract and nothing else--discounting any idea of common good or common purpose".
	The noble Lord, Lord Plant, also said, quite correctly,
	"If we design institutions on the assumption that people will always act in a self interested way, this very design may well encourage this to happen even in areas where it did not do so before, as the teachers' example shows".
	I believe, along with people of many religions and none, that there is an altruistic side to human nature as well as a self-interested one and that this altruism expresses itself in a desire to be of use to others. I also believe that it is fundamental to a civilised society that we create an ethos in which this desire to serve is encouraged and reinforced. This desire to serve can take many forms, private and public, within the local community and within wider society. It can motivate not only individual acts of helpfulness but a whole career whether in the private or the public sector. In particular it finds expression through the voluntary sector which is, I believe, of fundamental and growing importance in our society. It has traditionally been fundamental to those working in the public sector.
	Instead of the current disparagement of those working in the public service, we need a concentrated campaign to raise the esteem in which they are held. There are many good stories of devoted care in the NHS, dedication in teaching and high standards in the Civil Service. These are stories that need to be in people's minds for a proper respect for those working in the public sphere will in turn reinforce the desire to serve to the highest standards.
	Whatever reforms are necessary in the public sphere, I believe that the ethos and ethic of service is not only worth preserving but that if it was lost something essential to the well-being of our society would also be lost. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Moser: My Lords, in my years as an academic I became used to speaking for one hour at a time and I became disciplined in that respect, so five minutes on this occasion is a challenge, but I shall do my best.
	First, I thank everyone here, Members and officials, for their warm welcome which has meant a great deal to me. Of course, I am deeply honoured to find myself in your Lordships' House. It was a particularly happy occasion for me that the very day my peerage was announced was 65 years to the day when my family came to England as Jewish refugees from Hitler's Germany. We were, indeed, lucky to find ourselves here. I have been grateful every day of my life for the welcome we received, the friendship shown to us from the beginning and the future that lay before us.
	I have been proud to spend most of my working life and, indeed, my non-working life, in the public sector. That is one reason why I so welcome this debate initiated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. He has emphasised the public sector which to me is without question at the heart of a good, caring and fair society. I am, of course, aware that there are elements of the public sector which from time to time benefit from and, indeed, need the help of private enterprise but, in my view at any rate, that should not deflect us from putting the public sector at the very heart and at centre stage of our society. It deserves involvement and a spirit of service from all of us. It has not had that in all the years I have been here. There has been considerable underfunding and lack of morale. However, I believe that all that is in process of improvement.
	It seems to me, and has always seemed to me, that within the public sector nothing is more important than education. Education is also at the heart of the feeling of service which is what this debate is about. I refer to education all the way from nursery school to graduate studies--which should be planned as a truly seamless web of life-long learning. Happily, much has improved in recent years but the challenges that remain are to my mind formidable.
	I have time only to comment on one particular element in which I am involved partly as chairman of the admirable Basic Skills Agency. I refer, of course, to people's ability to read, to write and to cope with numbers. Without those basic abilities there is little point in thinking about service or anything else. A year or two ago I chaired a committee which dealt with adult literacy and numeracy. It reported exactly two and a half years ago and our findings, which are relevant to this debate, rightly shocked the nation. It emerged that something like 7 million adults--one in five of all the adults one sees wandering the streets of this country--have serious problems of literacy and numeracy. We love league tables. As a statistician I do not, but most of us do. In that league table, we come second from bottom in Europe. It is a shameful situation for a rich country. Many of those most affected are unemployed or in menial jobs from which they cannot escape. Many are inevitably en route to social exclusion. Not surprisingly, as your Lordships know, some 60 per cent of people in our prisons are unable to read or write. It is truly shocking.
	Our report set out an ambitious strategy, seeking to tackle, above all, the hard problem of how to motivate and encourage those most affected: how to provide attractive schemes for learning to read and write among many people who do not particularly know the point of so doing. All that needs help from everyone, not least employers--in my view they are insufficiently involved--community and voluntary organisations and, of course, the educational sector.
	Luckily, we now have a government strategy based on our report, with a special unit in the department. That is encouraging, as is the promised priority. But none of that must slip; nor must educational spending generally, even if present tragic circumstances force the Government to review their financial strategies. With regard to this particular problem, nothing but a national crusade will do. In that crusade the search for more voluntary teachers and trained mentors is crucial. That is one aspect of the wider problem discussed earlier today in Answer to a Starred Question. There are critical teacher shortages everywhere. I believe that that is the heart of the educational crisis we are in. We have to find ways not only to reward teachers properly but to lessen the bureaucracy under which they suffer--which interferes with their true role--to slim the curriculum, and to give this dedicated profession the public respect it richly deserves.
	When I was 12 and still in Berlin before my family had decided that we should leave, my father said that if I did not succeed him into banking, which was his business, and if, but only if, I turned out to be really able in every respect, then I might possibly get into the profession of teaching in schools. I hope to live long enough to experience that being said in this country.

Lord Peston: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure on your Lordships' behalf to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moser, on his maiden speech. I first met Claus Moser more than 50 years ago when I was a starting undergraduate and he was beginning his career as an assistant lecturer. I was sent for by Lionel Robbins, who was the greatest man connected with the LSE to come to your Lordships' House. "I see that you have chosen to do sociology as your ancillary subject in an economics degree", he said, "That is a complete waste of time. You must do mathematics". In those days I did what I was told so I trotted off to be taught by Mr Moser. His lectures generated a fascination with pure mathematics which has lasted all my life. His exposition was superb and everything he had to say was full of interest. He has demonstrated those qualities to your Lordships in his maiden speech today. We look forward to hearing him on many occasions in future on that broad range of subjects which are very much connected with him: the arts, especially music, statistics and, in addition, higher education.
	As an economist, I now turn to Adam Smith and one of his most famous remarks. Noble Lords will recall that he said:
	"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".
	However, it is often forgotten that he also wrote a book called The Theory of Moral Sentiments and here I paraphrase. He also said that self-centred economic ambition is socially beneficent so long as it is limited, as it normally is, by the beneficent dictates of our moral faculties. I think that the right reverend Prelate will agree with that remark.
	Contemporary management philosophy, usually American in nature, tells us that people must have well-defined tasks, their performance must be monitored and their remuneration adjusted to those measurements. That is all very well but--I echo the right reverend Prelate--if you only get paid for what you do, you will only do what you get paid for. Voluntary activity and a life of service will diminish or disappear altogether. I regret to say that we see this happening in our schools and hospitals even today. In my judgment we are worse off as a result.
	As the right reverend Prelate said, teachers do less out-of-hours work for schools, clubs, sporting activities and the like. Even nurses spend less time in their caring role, which is not easy to measure and is not measured, and concentrate purely on the medical side. More generally, people who do their best but because their best is below average receive less remuneration than their fellows, start to say to themselves, "Why should I even bother to do my best?" That is the nature of the society into which we have moved.
	All this derives, of course, from the economic philosophy which dominated our country in the 1980s. In fairness, I have to add that its earlier origins were in the winter of discontent where, again, public service workers forgot totally that that is what they were. They abandoned their principles at that time. We have moved on from those days; the position is not as bad as it was then. But there are vestiges remaining, especially in education, where, I regret to say that my right honourable friends--Ministers--are too devoted to the crude mechanisms of a reward system and have lost sight of the public service role in our schools and universities. I speak as someone who looks askance at the greater role of the private sector in the provision of education. It seems to me pre-eminently a public service activity and one that we should stick to.
	Finally, I refer to a lack of appreciation of service which arises in our honours system. Knighthoods are awarded to businessmen and senior professionals who merely do their jobs and are immensely well rewarded anyway. Senior professionals get where they do because they sit endlessly on committees, which they consider as service but I do not. If one examines the Honours List to find out who has served our nation in the sense of doing much more than they were paid for, one needs to look at the bottom end of the list. Nowadays, they are awarded MBEs. There one finds the people who do more than their job, work much longer hours than are in their contracts and accept relatively low pay.
	That was brought home to me some 25 years ago when I met a school dinner lady who was awarded a British Empire Medal. I think that those are now abolished. It turned out that throughout her working life she had always arrived at least one hour earlier to make sure that there were no problems and never left until at least one hour later than she should have done to ensure that all was well for the next day. At that level of honour, one did not get to meet Her Majesty the Queen. Instead, one's award was presented by a Government Minister--not bad, but he or she is certainly not Her Majesty. That taught me something which I still feel. It is my concluding remark. We really should change. Such a person should be properly honoured because that person really has served the nation and worked within the spirit of what I hope that we all think is right.

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I feel privileged to be a member of your Lordships' House, and I am delighted to be able to continue my contribution to the national debate on the issues which concern and interest me in, if I may say so in my short time here, a very civilised environment.
	This is not a subject which I would normally have chosen, but I was anxious to make my maiden speech as early as possible in order to make my contribution. One feels diffident about talking about one's own life and career and one's approach to public service. However, I feel passionately about the denigration of those in public life--especially politicians--and the apparently low esteem in which they are held. I agree with so much of what the right reverend Prelate said in his opening speech, but I shall not repeat that as I want to concentrate on a narrow area.
	I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It is not from that vantage point that I speak, but from the wider perspective of someone who has served in public life in various capacities for 41 years, 27 of which were in the other place.
	Recently my attention was drawn to a worthy educational institution which was developing new criteria for making honorary awards for distinguished service. It decided that serving politicians should be excluded as one of the criteria. I thought it ironic and sad that awards for major contributions to the nation's life should exclude those who serve the nation in public life. It gives the impression that there is a stigma attached to being in politics.
	Why is that? I shall have to be brief. I did not expect to have to be so quick. Parliament does not always help itself. Some of its less appealing aspects receive undue attention. Perhaps more attention in Parliament should be paid to the weaknesses of the confrontational system in today's world. The priority given to spin rather than policy has done great damage; which brings me to the media. To quote one journalist recently, the media's,
	"thrall to deadlines and weakness for sensation",
	has contributed to the low esteem in which so many in public life are held. I would add to that the 24-hour coverage, which means that the media are constantly looking for a new story every hour. It is impossible to feed that need without sensational issues being highly dramatised and over-exposed. There is also competition in the media, which means that they are always looking for gossip in the Lobby rather than listening to the serious debates in the Chamber.
	In an era of cynicism, the blame culture and hostility to authority, those who transgress--in every walk of life there are those who transgress--are given much greater attention than the vast majority who never do so throughout their lives. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has greatly improved the processes, but there are two dangers. First, the same amount of attention will be given to a minor transgression, and it is headlined so as to appear that the whole institution is like that. Secondly, there is a danger of political tit-for-tat in putting cases to the committee.
	I turn now to the financial rewards. It is regrettable that many footballers can earn more in a year than politicians, Members of Parliament and senior government Ministers can earn in a lifetime. Lawyers starting their careers in their first year in the City earn as much as a Member of Parliament. None of us expects great material rewards in public life, but there has to be a balance. It is strange that it is more rewarding to ask questions in the media rather than to find solutions or spend time dealing with difficult concepts and producing answers.
	I know all this. I know why we are in this position. I also know that the vast majority of people in public life have high standards, integrity, a desire to contribute substantially to improvement and change in the areas that interest them, and dedication to serving their constituents. The right reverend Prelate said that the concept of service has gone. I do not believe that. It is a shame that the desire to serve is so often scorned or scoffed at.
	Why does that matter? There are many talented and experienced people who could make substantial contributions not only to politics but to many other public appointments, but they are currently hugely discouraged from doing so. As a result, to take politics alone, we are now in danger of drawing politicians from far too narrow a pool. That is a great worry. It is disappointing that the Commissioner for Public Appointments said recently that people are also being discouraged from applying for public appointments.
	What can we do? We need to keep emphasising the generally high standards in British public life, compared with many other countries and perhaps also our past. We need to ensure fair rewards for those who play a part in public life. They do not expect high rewards, but they do not expect to have to make huge sacrifices. Above all we need to accentuate the positive and, wherever possible, combat and diminish those negative aspects to which I have referred.
	This is an important debate. I hope that the messages that we are hearing this afternoon will go out more widely to ensure that many more people will consider the worthy calling of politics and think about playing a part in the many other aspects of public life.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, it is a very pleasant duty for me on behalf of the whole House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, on his maiden speech. He brings to this House an unusually wide range of experience in no less than the public sector of service. He was the Member for South Norfolk in the other place. He has served as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, as Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons and as Secretary of State for Transport. That list alone reveals what we have gained by his joining your Lordships' House. We look forward very much, given that wide range of experience, to the contributions of the noble Lord and we hope that we shall see him here as often as he is able to come.
	I have a personal reason for thanking the right reverend Prelate for this debate. For the past 13 years I nursed my wife at home where she died just a year ago from Alzheimer's disease. Why am I mentioning this in the debate? I was diffident about doing so, but throughout those 13 years I received service from the public sector on a daily basis--from district nurses, local doctors, care assistants and the man who serviced the hoist enabling us to lift my wife in and out of bed. This is not anecdotal; it reflects NHS practice serving no fewer than 10,500 people in a Midlands market town. From wide contacts with those people, I know that I am not alone in saying that.
	My work also connects me with others serving in the public sector, including a chief constable who is responsible for more than 2,000 officers, a woman prison chaplain with pastoral care within the Prison Service for 600 male inmates and a friend who works for a health authority, which is itself responsible for the healthcare of nearly 500,000 people.
	I have three points to make. First, I want your Lordships' House to give pause to recognise that despite the pressures, a spirit of service is alive and well in many parts of the large West Midlands region where I serve. The events of 11th September enforced on many minds the vast importance of the emergency services.
	Secondly, I record briefly factors that militate against the delivery of good service. We all know about the need for public accountability. But is there not a danger of rather too much monitoring? There are a few too many demands from commissions for health and audit offices and too many Ofsteds. Good staff want to get on with the job.
	Again, is there not a danger, in all our zeal for the public service, of ignoring intractables? On my last visit to a local prison, a prison officer closing the visitors' room after visiting hours found a child of four holding a 10 month-old baby. They had simply been abandoned. Where does service begin and end there? I have waited for 12 hours beside my wife on a hospital trolley, but the intractable is that there were too few beds for too many admissions. Mortality.
	Finally, I close with two factors that I hope may strengthen the concept of service. I want to underline in red ink, figuratively speaking, all that the right reverend Prelate said about the voluntary sector. Those district nurses did well for us because they were helped by volunteers from a local community. I have become aware that in many primary and secondary schools a hidden army of women help children with learning difficulties. I also want to emphasise that at times surely service is, in its way, its own reward. Recently, I was walking down an aisle in our cathedral when I suddenly recognised part of Corelli's "Christmas Concerto" being performed by children from a local state school. The school has had its usual crop of problems, but the sound made by that musical tribute to the patient service of teaching music was, in a sense, its own reward. I am very glad to support the right reverend Prelate's Motion.

Humanitarian Situation in Afghanistan

Baroness Amos: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, I would like to keep the House informed regarding the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and my recent visit to Pakistan.
	"The humanitarian situation remains fragile. Humanitarian agencies, particularly the World Food Programme, are performing impressively under very difficult circumstances. Deliveries of food and other essential relief supplies which were halted after 11th September have resumed and the quantities crossing into Afghanistan are increasing. Deliveries inside Afghanistan are continuing, but are very difficult. So far, the refugee outflow has been smaller than expected. Contingency plans are being made in case the exodus increases.
	"This situation is very worrying, but the House will be aware that a very severe crisis existed long before the events of 11th September. It is due to 20 years of conflict, the policies of the Taliban and the drought of the past three years. All those events have devastated the livelihoods of millions of people. Emergency humanitarian supplies have been provided inside Afghanistan and to refugees in Pakistan and Iran for many years.
	"Immediately after 11th September, all international staff were withdrawn from Afghanistan due to fears for their safety. That led to a cessation of all supplies into Afghanistan. I and others have been doing all we can to get supplies moving again.
	"Due to harassment and Taliban restrictions on the use of telephones, it remains very difficult for the aid agencies to communicate with colleagues inside Afghanistan. Precise information on deliveries is therefore sparse. The Taliban have looted the offices and stocks of some aid agencies. Afghan hauliers are also fearful of harassment and attack.
	"But, despite those difficulties, programmes inside Afghanistan continue due to the brave efforts of local staff of the UN, the Red Cross and non-governmental organisations, who have continued to work in the face of extreme hardship and serious personal danger.
	"Our capacity to influence the humanitarian situation is also limited. Access to many areas of the country is not possible. But the international community remains determined to do all in our power to continue to provide desperately needed assistance. We are looking at all options--for example, World Food Programme air drops and the possibility of opening new land routes from neighbouring countries, such as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
	"Since deliveries recommenced on 11th October, the WFP has continued to make progress. Regional stockpiles are adequate and deliveries are entering the country in increasing amounts. The World Food Programme is moving towards achieving its target of delivering 1,700 tonnes of food a day. Over 5,000 tonnes have been delivered in the past week and when I was in Peshawar, rates had reached 1,300 tonnes a day. We are also doing all we can to maintain the onward distribution of those supplies from the major warehouses inside Afghanistan. Given the difficulties, WFP is now looking at delivering food direct to more destinations.
	"We are also working with the UNHCR to identify and prepare sites for refugee camps in Pakistan. We continue to urge all neighbouring countries to adopt an open border policy and allow those seeking refuge safe passage. Agencies are also attempting to provide assistance to those who remain on the Afghan side of the border.
	"As the House is aware, our aims are to bring to justice those responsible for the events of 11th September, to dismantle the Al'Qaeda network and to maintain humanitarian supplies to the people of Afghanistan. It is essential that we pursue all three aims at the same time. The humanitarian effort remains difficult for all the reasons I have outlined. It is not the case that a pause in the bombing would solve these problems. Indeed, a pause would simply encourage the Taliban to harass humanitarian supplies more than at present to prevent further military action.
	"All our objectives would be better achieved if a new government can be put in place in Afghanistan. Key to this process will be the central role of Ambassador Brahimi, Kofi Annan's newly appointed special representative for Afghanistan. We warmly welcome his appointment. Ambassador Brahimi is well respected and has considerable experience of the region. His is a difficult task and we stand ready to support him and his office in any way we can.
	"There is also a need for the current coalition military campaign to be fully informed about the humanitarian effort and situation. Co-ordination mechanisms have been put in place, although closer co-ordination is still required. My department continues to liaise closely with the UN and our US and UK military colleagues at both HQ and field level to ensure that there is a shared understanding of each other's objectives and to create safe areas as rapidly as possible.
	"We also continue to urge other donors to turn pledges to the UN appeal quickly into actual payments. Of the 600 million dollars requested, over 700 million dollars has been pledged, but only 70 million dollars has so far been received. Although immediate needs are covered, unless pledges are released soon, ongoing operations will be hampered.
	"We cannot resolve the humanitarian--and political--crisis in Afghanistan without attention to the regional context. Afghanistan's neighbours, particularly Pakistan and Iran, have generously provided for millions of Afghan refugees for many years. Pakistan's role is of central importance. President Musharraf's government have given strong support to the international effort in Afghanistan. We should not underestimate the burden that that places on a country already playing host to 2 million refugees while at the same time undergoing painful economic reform to overcome the legacy of previous mismanagement.
	"Last week, I had fruitful discussions with President Musharraf, Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz and other ministers in Islamabad. The government there remain strongly committed to the efforts of the coalition, to economic reform and to poverty reduction in Pakistan. They are also firmly committed to parliamentary elections by October 2002. There is a real prospect that the government can achieve a much better future for the country. But the economy of Pakistan has taken a knock as a consequence of the events of 11th September. Pakistan needs short-term help, debt relief and continuing support to maintain its long-term reform effort.
	"I reaffirmed our commitment to a new IMF/World Bank programme of budgetary support and to writing off remaining government debt. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking urgently with his Finance Minister colleagues at how we might best collectively agree a debt alleviation package for Pakistan that underpins its reform programme.
	"Afghanistan is a country that has suffered terribly and faces a very severe humanitarian crisis. The reason why bin Laden has his headquarters in Afghanistan is linked to the cause of the crisis. Afghanistan is a failed state because of 20 years of warfare and the excesses of the Taliban regime. We must retain our resolve to bring to justice those responsible for the events of 11th September, to dismantle the Al'Qaeda network and to maintain our humanitarian assistance. We must also, through the efforts of Ambassador Brahimi, support the establishment of a representative government in Afghanistan who will work with the international community to resolve the immediate crisis, start the long haul of reconstructing Afghanistan and offer its people a better future. Our Government remain determined to do all that we can towards this end".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, for repeating the Statement on this very important issue. We have had four debates on the present crisis, but a number of questions remain unanswered. The Minister will know that my honourable friend Caroline Spelman has called for a matching in this country of an appeal launched by President Bush asking every American child to donate a dollar for an Afghan child. The British Red Cross is willing to administer such a scheme and has been to see her officials. We feel most strongly about this valuable initiative. Will the Minister use the opportunity to support it?
	I shall structure my comments around three key areas: first, the aid situation within Afghanistan; secondly, the refugee situation around Afghanistan; and, thirdly, thoughts on the long-term reconstruction of Afghanistan.
	First, there has been little unanimity about how much aid is required for the region. We fear that the figures used by DfID may prove to be a considerable underestimate. The World Food Programme says that we need to get 50,000 metric tonnes of food into Afghanistan every month. However, a month from now, two regions of Afghanistan will be cut off by snow. In those two areas 70,000 tonnes of food need to be stockpiled within the next month. In other words, we need to ensure that within four weeks 120,000 tonnes of food get into Afghanistan.
	The latest information released by DfID is that we are currently shipping in approximately 50,000 tonnes of food each month. That will not be sufficient to provide stockpiles for areas that will be cut off by the snow. There is clear dissent between the NGOs and the government agencies over the basic facts. What is the Minister's assessment of the true position? Does she acknowledge that a significant proportion of the food meant for the starving in Afghanistan never even reaches them? Last week we heard reports of 7,000 tonnes of food aid being seized from a UN warehouse. Medecins sans Frontieres reported that the Taliban had seized medical supplies from its compound. How obstructive is the Taliban to the delivery of aid?
	Another aspect of the question is whether food is reaching people in the remoter regions of Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands of people are on the move throughout the country. There is a real need to get food to the people in their villages to prevent them from fleeing their homes and adding to the refugee crisis. How much food is reaching people in their homes and villages in remote areas of Afghanistan, and how much is based in the larger towns of the country?
	Can the Minister say what are the latest figures on population movement within Afghanistan? Does she accept the assessment of many aid agencies which say that it is likely that many people will die a lonely death in the mountains, not necessarily from starvation but from illnesses generated by malnutrition? Yesterday's Select Committee interviewed representatives of the aid agencies, and concern was expressed about the lack of co-ordination on the ground where a considerable number of NGOs are working. Relations with local Afghan NGOs have been vital to the aid distribution network. Indeed, Christian Aid has a policy of working with local partner agencies from the region.
	The importance of local partnerships with British aid agencies cannot be stressed highly enough, especially where the Taliban heavily restricts contact with the outside world. Will the Minister acknowledge the role of Afghan NGOs and their importance in the relief work? I am most grateful to the Minister for reversing the Government's policy earlier this year regarding our people working for NGOs in Afghanistan. I wonder what the present situation is.
	That leads me to the refugee problem. Is the Minister satisfied that standards in refugee camps are adequate? We on these Benches have asked repeatedly for the refugee camps to meet internationally agreed standards. However, indications are that that is not the case. The UNHCR reports that there are great difficulties with the refugee camps in Pakistan. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, said that the UNHCR is fighting a losing battle to build adequate refugee camps on time.
	Unless the refugee camps are adequate and prepared for a large influx of refugees, the situation will deteriorate rapidly. Aid workers in yesterday's Select Committee meeting said that a potential for disaster was looming on the borders. As the Secretary of State has just returned from Pakistan, where a generous aid package for the country was agreed, can the Minister tell your Lordships whether assurances were received from the Government of Pakistan that they would take action to improve the standards in the refugee camps?
	It was reported in the newspapers yesterday that the Taliban will run one of the refugee camps in Afghanistan. Can the Minister confirm or deny those reports? If they are true, who authorised that decision and who will ensure that the poor refugees chosen to be housed in Taliban refugee camps will not face the brutality and repression that characterise Taliban rule?
	Thirdly, I turn to the long-term rebuilding of Afghanistan. We on these Benches have called repeatedly on the Government to commit themselves to the rebuilding of Afghanistan after the conflict has ended. In that regard, we were very pleased to see that that is now one of the Government's official war aims. Given that the rebuilding of Afghanistan is such a large and ambitious commitment, can the Minister inform your Lordships what discussions were held with our coalition partners about this shared responsibility?
	Finally, what will be the position of women in the future Afghanistan? On Monday, the Foreign Secretary made a very detailed speech in which he outlined his vision of a future government in Afghanistan. How does his vision compare with that of the other coalition partners? However, the Foreign Secretary did not mention the representation of women within Afghanistan. Women have been treated in the most inhumane and degrading way. I am sure that everyone in this House will agree with me in saying that providing the women of Afghanistan with a far better future should be a top priority in the rebuilding of the country. What assurances can the Minister give the House that women and children will be treated fairly when food aid is distributed in refugee camps? The present policy of allowing village elders to decide who gets food does not necessarily mean that food goes to the most vulnerable.
	War always takes its toll on women and children, but they do represent the future for this war-torn country. The Government share an enormous responsibility to get the humanitarian aspect of this crisis right. Otherwise, ordinary Afghan people will never believe us when we say that our war is not with them.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, particularly because I believe that doing so meant the postponement of her travel plans for this evening. We are grateful that she is here to answer our questions.
	I am sure that all noble Lords recognise that the Statement contained a classic under-statement; namely, that the humanitarian situation remains fragile. The possibility of a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan is brewing. That is one reason why many in my party feel cautious about the continuation of the present campaign. However, we must face the real situation. Although much food is available and can be shipped in, the Taliban has done little during the past few months, and it continues to do little; it merely exacerbates a difficult situation. Indeed, there are reports that the Taliban is charging vast amounts for the transportation of food across its borders to feed its own population.
	I take this opportunity to commend NGOs on the work that they have undertaken in a dangerous and difficult situation. There have been unfortunate incidents in which they were hit by bombs that were aimed elsewhere--Afghanistan is becoming a very lawless area. It takes much courage for those working for the World Food Programme, Feed the Children and Oxfam to man the trucks that are taking vast quantities of food--thousands of tonnes--into an area, and they risk their lives by doing so.
	I, too, recognise the role that Pakistan has played in this context. It has opened its borders to not just thousands or tens of thousands of refugees but to millions of them. That has been done by a country that is suffering its own economic problems. As someone who monitored the previous elections in Pakistan, I also look forward to the elections in 2002.
	Other noble Lords wish to discuss this matter so I shall put only one question to the Minister. What are the Government doing to replenish DfID's budget? The aid that has already been pledged will have drained the emergency relief budget. What action are the Government taking to ensure that the needs of Afghanistan are met and that other programmes, such as those relating to Sierra Leone and other African projects, will not be stripped bare to pay for this immediate crisis?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that NGOs are to be commended on their work in a very difficult situation. Many Afghan workers in NGOs are putting their lives on the line when they seek to deliver food.
	I shall try to address the questions that have been raised. The noble Baroness asked about the appeal that has been launched by President Bush and whether we would support it. We should be happy to discuss that with the British Red Cross, but it has not yet been in touch with us. When it is, we shall discuss the matter with it.
	The noble Baroness asked about the figures. I assure her that we are working closely with the World Food Programme in that regard. The figures that we are using have been agreed with the WFP. She mentioned that 50,000 tonnes of food was needed per month. In fact, our figures suggest that 52,000 tonnes needs to be delivered and distributed every month, along with several thousand tonnes of medical supplies, clothing, blankets and tents.
	Like the noble Baroness, we are particularly concerned about the onset of winter, when the situation will become very difficult. We are keen to ensure that there are adequate stockpiles of food. As the noble Baroness said, the Taliban is being obstructive. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, it is taxing food supplies that are coming into Afghanistan.
	Communication remains difficult. The Taliban has prevented NGO representatives from using telephones to gauge the situation on the ground, which would assist with planning. In some cases, it has allowed NGOs to make one telephone call a day. Noble Lords will understand how difficult the situation is on the ground. It has also seized assets. For example, the WFP does not now have access to its warehouse in Kandahar. Food might be in a warehouse, but access cannot be gained to it.
	The noble Baroness asked about the importance of supplying food to remoter regions. That is why the WFP is considering delivering food direct to more destinations. It is also considering air-drops to the more remote regions in Afghanistan precisely because of the problem, although we recognise that air-drops can be difficult.
	The noble Baroness discussed the lack of co-ordination on the ground. Given the communications difficulties, that problem is of course understandable. However, the work of local NGOs is absolutely vital to that process. She also asked about standards in refugee camps--she has raised that matter with me previously. We work very closely with the UNHCR in that regard. Part of the UNHCR's role is to try to ensure that refugee camps meet internationally agreed standards. It will continue to monitor the situation and try to ensure that refugee camps do that.
	The noble Baroness asked about the situation regarding women and girls, which we take very seriously indeed. We strongly support the common programme approach under the UN-led strategic framework for Afghanistan. One of its key themes is the protection and advancement of human rights, with particular emphasis on gender. The agencies through which we channel our funds, including the UN agencies, the Red Cross movement and other NGOs, continue to focus on the rights of Afghan women and girls, both inside Afghanistan and in neighbouring countries. Obviously, the role of women and girls will be important within any future effort to build a coalition or consensus government in Afghanistan.
	I have to say to the noble Baroness that I have no evidence of the Taliban running camps in Pakistan. If she knows any more about that, perhaps she could let me have some information.
	We are, as the noble Baroness said, committed to rebuilding Afghanistan after the conflict has ended. We are engaging in ongoing discussions with our coalition partners and others and the UN is playing a key role in that regard.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked what the Government are doing to replenish DfID's budget. That is under active consideration. There have been discussions between the department and other government departments. The noble Lord will know that in past situations the Treasury has been mindful of the need to ensure that DfID's work in other parts of the world will continue.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that we all deeply appreciate the fact that my noble friend has made herself available for the Statement this afternoon. I should declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam association in asking two questions. First, my noble friend has referred to Mr Brahimi. All who know him cannot think of a better appointment and we all wish him well. Can my noble friend assure us that no penny will be spared in ensuring not only that the United Nations has a role to play in reconstruction but that it will have the resources to play that role effectively? There is a very strong feeling within the United Nations system that repeatedly it is called upon to take up responsibilities without being properly resourced. Can we have a specific reassurance on that point?
	Secondly, my noble friend has referred to co-ordination. Can she assure us that if there is to be no pause in the bombing--and I personally accept that position--will there be the maximum possible co-ordination between those responsible for the humanitarian tasks and those responsible for the military tasks so that objectives on both fronts can be fulfilled without one part of the operation getting in the way of the other?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we all recognise the important role that the UN is playing and will have to continue to play in the future reconstruction of Afghanistan. The resources issue will be looked at very carefully indeed. We all recognise that if the UN is to play such an important role it must be adequately resourced. All countries within the UN system will need to look at this.
	As regards securing the maximum possible co-ordination, this very much concerns my right honourable friend Clare Short, the Secretary of State for International Development. She is working with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that there is co-ordination from the UK end and we are also working to ensure that such co-ordination is carried through internationally with our partners. I can reassure my noble friend on that point.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is enormous concern among the staff of the aid organisations about the side-effects of the bombing and whether it is properly targeted or will have consequences for humanitarian work in itself? There is now clear evidence of civilian casualties, not least in centres where there are humanitarian workers such as have been described, related to our own aid organisations. How can that be reconciled, and can she say whether more members of her own party will be allowed to express these concerns on behalf of aid organisations and the public?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, can I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that every effort has been and is being made to ensure that the bombing is targeted. We deeply regret any civilian casualties as a result of the bombing. As regards members of my own party being able to raise any concerns that they may have, it is important that in the present situation everyone has the opportunity to voice any such concerns because that is the difference between what we have, with our freedom and our democracy, and what exists in Afghanistan.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, I am particularly pleased that in the Statement this afternoon a lot of weight was put on the problems facing Pakistan, because although that country is--temporarily, I hope--suspended from the Commonwealth gatherings it is a well-founded member of the Commonwealth. When the Prime Minister was in Islamabad not long after the 11th September, when Pakistan very bravely said it was going to be a full member in the battle against the terrorists, he had a long talk with General Musharraf. Mention was made at the time of the debt which is owed by Pakistan. Only last week the USA has either rescheduled or forgiven part of the debt, and it behoves us to be proactive in helping Pakistan with its debts. I hope the Minister will make this clear. Finance Minister Shaukiat was due to visit England about a fortnight ago. His trip has been momentarily cancelled, but I hope that he will be coming fairly soon.
	Lastly, I think that there is a misunderstanding. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, spoke about the Taliban looking after refugee camps in Pakistan. There would be no question of the Taliban being allowed to run such places in Pakistan itself.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandberg, for his clarification. It is true that Pakistan is suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth, but the transition to democracy is happening. Provincial and local elections took place earlier this year and a commitment has been made for national elections by October 2002.
	On the subject of debt, substantial progress has been made on economic reform. Pakistan completed a nine-month standby arrangement for the IMF earlier this month, which is the first time in her history that this has been done. The UK is ready to provide substantial economic assistance, and we have made that clear. It will enable Pakistan to bring about improvements in social services delivery. That will amount to £15 million in this financial year and in the order of £45 million for each of the following two years. We agree that debt relief is important. We are not a major creditor and we have written off some £20 million of debt which was previously owed to the Commonwealth Development Corporation and transferred to the department earlier this year.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, although I am not an expert on the numbers of refugees or on the current situation in Afghanistan but merely an observer and a parliamentarian, would my noble friend respond to the concern that thus far the amount of humanitarian assistance available in particular to vulnerable women and children is about a quarter of what is required? What are the Government doing to make sure that not only this country but others involved in the conflict try to ensure that we provide at least as much food as is required, not only on a daily basis but in the long term?
	Also I should like to say that in this conflict the plight of Afghan women has been long forgotten: very little attention has been paid to that aspect. Will my noble friend assure me and your Lordships' House that expertise and sufficient resources will subsequently be made available to Afghanistan when re-building takes place, and that every effort will be made to provide a role model for women's advancement not only for British Muslims but for other Muslim countries--a role model which can withstand the allegation of an imperialist model for the advancement of women that has often been attributed to modernisation of any kind and the intervention of any western countries?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first I can reassure my noble friend that we are doing all we can to ensure that the food that the World Food Programme and others have identified as being required is delivered. However, in the Statement and in the answers that I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I made it absolutely clear that there are some difficulties attached to getting the food through that are not of our making but are a result of the way in which the Taliban operates.
	On the amount of humanitarian assistance, the UN has made an appeal. It requested 600 million dollars and in fact received pledges for over 700 million. Our concern is that of those pledges only 70 million dollars have been received so far. With the UN, we are putting pressure on those countries that have made those pledges to ensure that the money is released.
	I agree with my noble friend that we need to ensure that the experience and expertise of other countries which have worked hard to ensure that women are a part of the development process are used in our thinking and planning when talking about the future reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can answer a question on airdrops to outlying places. She talked of airdrops and she cast some doubt upon how well the produce is received on the ground. Is there any possibility of using helicopters for the job, or is that too difficult? I know that helicopters now can carry a considerable amount and they could land the food where it is wanted.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that in considering whether it is appropriate to use airdrops, the method will also be considered. The issue is much less about the method used--be it planes or helicopters--and much more about whether airdrops will be dangerous, who they will land on and whether they will be more problematic than not doing airdrops at all. All those factors are being and will be taken into consideration when the World Food Programme considers the use of airdrops as part of its future strategy.

Northern Ireland

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, I shall make a Statement about developments in Northern Ireland. It is the Statement which I have been told so often I would never be able to make.
	"Yesterday the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning reported that it had witnessed an event--which it regarded as significant--in which the IRA had put a quantity of arms beyond use.
	"The materiel in question had included arms, ammunition and explosives. The commission was satisfied that the arms in question had been dealt with in accordance with the scheme and regulations. In other words, the IRA's act constituted an act of decommissioning under its statutory remit.
	"The word 'historic' tends to be over-used about the Northern Ireland political process. There have been so many twists and turns, so many moments of optimism, so many setbacks along the way. But yesterday's move by the IRA is, in my view, unprecedented and genuinely historic. It takes the peace process on to a new political level.
	"Rarely has the whole community been so united. As the Belfast Newsletter said this morning:
	"for most people, Ulster this morning seems a more hopeful place in which space created by the IRA's unprecedented move will be seized by those with political vision and courage".
	"From another perspective, as the Irish Times said:
	"a rubicon has been crossed . . . a historic milestone has been passed. It is an affirmation by the republican movement--in tangible terms--that it cannot operate in both the paramilitary and political worlds".
	"Let us recall why we got here. We got here through a widespread recognition--after thirty years of death, pain and misery--of the futility of violence. That was the spur and its memory should remain the spur to all of us.
	"And let us remember just how far we have come in the last four years: the major constitutional changes, including the establishment of the principle of consent and the ending of Ireland's territorial claim to Northern Ireland. The new institutional architecture has been shown to work, and can and must be revived by yesterday's historic move. The Human Rights and Equality Commissions have been set up--and are hard at work.
	"After much debate, an unprecedented new beginning to policing, with cross-community support, has been made.
	"None of these has reached full fruition but all of them, we have been told, were impossible to accomplish. Yesterday another seemingly impossible achievement was brought about.
	"This is the culmination of efforts by many people over many years, including my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, John Major, successive US Administrations, the republican leadership, which has shown itself to have the vision and confidence to bring an armed movement to the point of ceasefire, the honourable Member for Foyle and the party he leads, and the smaller pro-agreement parties.
	"I pay tribute also to the right honourable Member for Upper Bann and his colleagues. Were it not for his persistence, willingness to take risks and sheer courage under attack, it is no exaggeration to say that yesterday's events are unlikely to have happened. It is a vivid illustration of the power of engagement, the powerlessness of detachment. It is those who have taken risks for peace who have achieved this progress, not those who have doubted from the sidelines.
	"And of course I am sure the whole House would want to join me in thanking General John de Chastelain and his colleagues. They have shown endless patience and dignity. The best thanks we can give them is to let them get on with their task.
	"Yesterday's events opened up opportunities and challenges--opportunities which we need to seize and challenges which we need to face in three areas.
	"First, the political institutions which are the democratic core of the Belfast agreement--the Assembly, the Executive, the North-South Ministerial Council and the British-Irish Council--should now be restored to full operation as quickly as possible, and should operate in a stable and uninterrupted way. The decision of the Ulster Unionist Party today to put the Ministers back into government is a helpful step in creating a new dynamic.
	"Secondly, we need to press on with the implementation of the agreement in all its aspects. I have placed the Government's response to the decommissioning commission's report in the Library of the House. But I should in particular mention that we will complete the implementation of the Patten report, including the review of the new arrangements to which we are already committed and the introduction of legislation to amend the Police Act 2000 to reflect more fully the Patten recommendations.
	"We intend shortly to publish an implementation plan for the criminal justice review and draft legislation, and to introduce the legislation during the current session.
	"And we will undertake a progressive rolling programme of security normalisation, reducing levels of troops and installations in Northern Ireland, as the security situation improves. Our aim is to secure as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements. That is the task which now confronts us in the period ahead.
	"But I can announce a step in that direction today. The IRA's action in putting weapons beyond use has wide political significance. It also, in itself, makes a contribution to the improvement we all want to see in the security situation.
	"In the immediate aftermath of yesterday's event, I have discussed the situation with my security advisers--including the Chief Constable and GOC. There is, of course, a significant continuing threat from republican and loyalist dissidents. Notwithstanding that, the Chief Constable confirms that yesterday's developments represent a real improvement. We therefore intend, as an immediate response to yesterday's developments, to demolish the observation tower on Sturgan mountain in South Armagh. Work on this is starting today.
	"We will demolish one of the observation towers on Camlough mountain in South Armagh. Work on this is starting today. In addition we will demolish the supersangar at Newtownhamilton police station adjacent to the helicopter landing site. Work on that will begin tomorrow. We will also demolish the Magherafelt army base. Work on that will begin tomorrow.
	"But there is a third priority. All paramilitary groups should now play their part in building on yesterday's progress. This is not just about decommissioning. When small children cannot go to school without being terrorised or innocent civilians cannot sleep in their beds without fear of bombs, the scale of the challenge facing us is evident. Some of the loyalist organisations have played a crucial part in the peace process. I now ask them to ask themselves what they can do to move the process forward. Whatever else, there must be an end to the mindless sectarian violence of recent weeks.
	"There are other difficult legacies of the past. The early release scheme was, I know, one of the most painful and contentious aspects of the agreement. All qualifying prisoners have now been released. We and the Irish Government have now accepted that it would be a natural development of that scheme for outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings for offences committed before 10th April 1998 not to be pursued against supporters of organisations now on ceasefire. Both Governments have agreed to take such steps as are necessary to resolve the issue as soon as possible, and in any event by March 2002.
	"Piece by piece the Belfast agreement is taking shape. As the Prime Minister said last night, we are a long way from completing our journey. There will no doubt be obstacles ahead, but at a time when the world is grappling with the effects of the most evil terrorism, and we see in the Middle East the awful consequences when political dialogue breaks down and opportunities are missed, I can tell the House that the political process in Northern Ireland is alive and moving forward. To sustain this will require hard work, steady nerves and the continued ability on all sides to reach out and make difficult compromises. The Government are ready and eager to play their part".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend in another place. We on this side of the House welcome the general thrust of the Statement. Certainly, this is a step forward in the Northern Ireland peace process. There have been many positive changes especially to the constitution during the negotiations of the peace process, as pointed out in the Statement. The fact that there are two republican leaders taking part in the government of a part of the United Kingdom is remarkable and is certainly significant.
	I join the noble and learned Lord in his compliments to the right honourable David Trimble and his thanks to General de Chastelain. With that go my thanks and praises to all Prime Ministers and former Secretaries of State who have worked so hard on the peace agreement. Two of my noble friends who are former Secretaries of State are in their places today. We owe them all a due debt of gratitude.
	Where I start to part company with Her Majesty's Government is over the matter of further legislation to amend the Police Act 2000. I ask the noble and learned Lord to reassure the House on this matter, especially in relation to the appointment of convicted terrorists to any part of the new structures set up for policing Northern Ireland. Does the noble and learned Lord agree with me that there should be no further concessions to Sinn Fein/IRA in this context? Is the new legislation likely to come before the House shortly? Will it be dealt with in a rush, or will it just take its place in the normal day-to-day routines of your Lordships' House?
	Furthermore, does the noble and learned Lord agree that today's act of decommissioning must be followed by a verifiable process which includes all IRA and so-called loyalist paramilitary weapons spread throughout the awful network of aggression and violence, and that all gang leaders from whatever part of the Province they come must get on the bandwagon and join the process? I hope that Her Majesty's Government will turn their attention to how they can start to make that happen after today's developments.
	Can the noble and learned Lord also assure the House that General de Chastelain's remit, which runs out in February, will last, and be seen to last, to see the process through? I understand that the responsibility for verifying the process of all decommissioning remains firmly on the gallant general's shoulders. It is important that we do not lose him half-way through the process.
	As to future security arrangements, will the noble and learned Lord reassure the House that no reductions of security forces will take place which could leave the people of the Province, and, in turn the whole nation, vulnerable to attack from dissidents from any organisation, especially in the light of this morning's statement by the Real IRA that it intends to take on the mantel of PIRA and continue the armed struggle? For those who do not know it, this follows the history of the republican movement in Ireland and is very depressing.
	As the Statement says, there will be many obstacles ahead but the public decommissioning by PIRA is a very significant event in the history of Irish republicanism. Those who know something of the history will have some understanding of the ramifications; namely, the bureaucratic processes, the heart-rending and the arguments that must have gone on in republicanism for some time to arrive at a point where there has been at least some public decommissioning of arms. Although this is only another step on a long road, this event should not be treated lightly.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, in thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement made earlier in another place, I too wish to associate these Benches with the main points made in it. It has been an extraordinarily taxing and exasperating process over the past eight years or so. Patience, dogged determination and mental agility in the highest degree have been called for, and in the end forthcoming, from all those involved: politicians and officials alike from both sides of the Anglo-Irish divide. I witnessed their performance for eight years, and I pay tribute to their skills. Their efforts and the complex meanderings of the whole tortuous process will provide further employment for Irish historians for many years to come. Irish historians are about the most viable and enduring industry on both sides of the Border.
	The role played by the USA in achieving this outcome cannot be stressed too much. President Clinton was quite remarkable in the energy and time that he devoted during his period in office to the problems of Northern Ireland, and it is good to see that his initiatives and determination have been followed up by the Bush Administration.
	In acknowledging the various contributions over the years I also emphasise the persistent assiduity of Mr John Hume whose initiatives early on began the process with the Hume-Adams talks. To this was later added, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, the remarkable negotiating skills of the right honourable David Trimble. It was fitting that both of them received the Nobel prize. Not merely did they receive that prize but they have continued to live up to it.
	IRA decommissioning is something of a watershed. There is still much to be done to promote an authentic democratic polity and its concomitant a liberal civic society. We wish Northern Ireland God speed in that vital regard. There is the immediate problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, referred, of the position of the loyalist paramilitaries. I know that the Government are fully apprised of the problem. Can the noble and learned Lord indicate how the loyalist groups might be persuaded to accept the Belfast Agreement and join with others to secure a lasting and prosperous peace in Northern Ireland?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, may I say how grateful I am for the generous responses from both Front Benches? The one thing that unites us in this Parliament, not simply in this House, is that, whatever occurs, at the moment the motive that drives us entirely is the ambition that our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland should have the opportunity of a decent ordered life in--as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said--a liberal civic society.
	It is extraordinary that two republican leaders have been so significantly engaged with a government over part of the United Kingdom. It seems to demonstrate--the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and I are agreed--that the recognition dawns far too late that we must live together in whatever community with whatever differences of view or differences of tradition or religion. The only way to live together is to accommodate the fact that people are different.
	The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked a number of questions on the Police Act. I specifically mentioned that Act in repeating Dr Reid's Statement. We remain committed to the implementation of effective and representative policing set out in the Patten report and the implementation plan published in August. We are proceeding on that basis. We are committed to the timetable in the August plan. The police name changes on 4th November. The board assumes its powers. At the same time new recruits enter training.
	The implementation plan announced, as your Lordships will remember, a review to start next March and to be completed by October 2002. The plan also announced a number of legislative amendments to be made following that. Therefore, that indicates my answer on the parliamentary timetable. I stress that that is my present understanding. Things change so rapidly in the Northern Ireland context that sometimes, as we know too well in this House, one has to alter arrangements for a greater purpose.
	As is well known, the appointments have already been made to the board. Sinn Fein did not nominate anyone. A question was put about the verifiable continuing process. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is quite right that the effects of the act of decommissioning come to an end in February next year. That means that if we want to continue--I say in parenthesis that it seems to me to be overwhelmingly likely that we shall--I will have to come to this House to ask for an extension of the decommissioning act.
	I personally of course hope that General de Chastelain and his two colleagues will continue their selfless work. The noble Lord is also right that it is not simply the Provisional IRA that needs to be part of a verifiable process, the loyalist groups do and so do all splinter groups from the Provisional IRA. Until the noble Lord mentioned the matter, I did not know that the Real IRA had said that it had taken on the mantle of the Provisional IRA. It is a small group. It is a vicious and violent group. One of its members has just been sent to prison for five years. If one is allowed to applaud a fellow human being going to prison, it seems to me that that is the occasion for significant applause. Furthermore, the alleged leader of the Provisional IRA is in custody in the Republic of Ireland awaiting trial. It would not be appropriate to say anything more about the course of his trial.
	The loyalist groups are not monolithic. They have different views. If what David Irvine said is correctly reported, the situation seems to be rather more encouraging than some responses from other leaders of groups. They are small but dangerous groups.
	The noble Lord's final question related to security. He wanted my assurance that there would be no reduction of security in the wider sense leaving the people of the Province not properly protected. I give that assurance. Plainly, in the past 30 years no Secretary of State has ever made decisions of this nature and quality without taking the most careful advice from the appropriate agencies.
	I absolutely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, said. We owe a significant debt to the United States. Both administrations of President Clinton and President Bush have fully engaged themselves. Although President Bush's administration has been for a brief time, it has been a critical time. John Hume and David Trimble are extremely distinguished. Not only did they gain the Nobel Peace Prize but both were--rather more importantly I think in the scale of things--given honorary doctorates by the University of Wales.
	I am cautioning myself about being optimistic, but this is a sea change. It is quite extraordinary. I do not think that the full magnitude of it has entered our minds because it has happened so recently.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, today I stand here as a proud Ulsterman and the first member of my party in history to speak in your Lordships' House following an act of decommissioning by a republican paramilitary group. As my party leader, David Trimble, said last night:
	"This is a day we were told would never happen".
	But it has. I would like to pay tribute to him for his brave and resilient stance over the past three-and-a-half years in seeking to implement the objectives of the Ulster Unionist Party--democracy and decommissioning. If he had indeed listened to the advice of a number of other politicians in Northern Ireland--I am thinking here in particular of representatives of the Democratic Unionist Party--we would never have been in the position that we are today.
	Does the Minister agree that yesterday's beginning to decommissioning by the Provisional IRA should mark the start of a process which will be completed prior to the expiry of the mandate of the international independent commission on decommissioning in February 2002?
	Will the Minister further agree that a move now by so-called loyalist paramilitaries to decommissioning their arsenals of illegal weapons and explosives will give a further boost to the prospects of permanent peace in Northern Ireland? It is only when all the illegal armaments in Ulster and the Republic of Ireland are really put beyond use that we can believe that our Troubles of these past centuries are really at an end.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I endorse again what the noble Lord said about the right honourable David Trimble. I think that I have dealt with the question of February 2002.
	I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord in answer to his first question. To be quite candid with the House, I agree with the timescale that the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, had in mind and the fact that, by necessary implication, we shall almost inevitably be looking for an extension of that period in terms of legislation.
	I entirely agree with the second point of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, about the loyalist paramilitaries. If they have the imagination and if their heart is big enough they should see that plainly we must maintain the dynamic. Mr Trimble responded today immediately. I hope that the British Government are seen to have responded immediately. It was said that we must try and respond with a generous and full heart. That applies to everyone.
	The problems of other weapons used for the kind of intimidation--blackmail and general threats--that we discussed yesterday in this Chamber remain a continuing blot on a society which could otherwise be so happy.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, may I too express gratitude for much of what is contained in the Statement? The Government have succeeded in at last laying hold of something which many apparently thought was impossible. It was considered to be a will-o'-the-wisp and incapable of being made real. For that, I wish to congratulate them. In particular, along with the congratulations that have been made so widely today, I wish to add mine for Mr Trimble and General de Chastelain.
	For many of us and, I suspect, for the noble and learned Lord himself, it will be a struggle to accept the amnesty that has been announced in the Statement. We must recognise that not only is it a risk as regards peace, but that it is also an act of injustice. As regards the rest, I wish to express my agreement with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord. This is a sea change and I believe that it will be seen to mark a real advance in the process.
	In conclusion, is it not right that we should all remember how many continue illegally to hold arms and munitions in Northern Ireland and how far the Provisional IRA itself still has to go in order to fulfil the Belfast agreement? In calculating what reductions in security may be appropriate in response to this real advance, will the Secretary of State continue to exercise true Scottish perception and caution?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, knowing John Reid as I do, I think I can say that those elements are bred in the bone. The noble and learned Lord is quite right in his final remarks. That is why Dr Reid has taken particular care deliberately to underline the fact that, as is his duty, he had taken advice from the GOC and the Chief Constable.
	The noble and learned Lord speaks as a former Attorney-General and as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I agree with him in his remarks that no one who believes in the rigour of the law likes to see anything other than that rigour of the law applied. I have not used the word "amnesty"; I said simply that outstanding prosecutions and extradition proceedings would not be pursued in respect of those supporters of organisations not on ceasefire and that the precise mechanisms have not yet fully been worked through. But it is right to say that those who may have committed crimes and go unpunished bring a consequential injustice. It was for that reason that I stated last night--knowing nothing of the contents of this Statement--that it was probable that we would all have to compromise, unwillingly, but faithful to the purpose which must drive us on. I do not pretend that my views are any different from those of the noble and learned Lord.

Lord Eames: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place. I wonder whether he would agree with me that, in the natural euphoria over what has taken place, there are certain ingredients which this House should not ignore?
	One of those is a sense of perspective. Anyone who knows or reads about the history of Irish republicanism cannot doubt that what has taken place over the past few days is monumental. It represents a total sea change for that element of Irish life. To that extent, this is a historic moment and one that should not be underestimated. However, would the noble and learned Lord agree with me as regards a view that I know has been expressed recently in a few quarters; namely, that the real test of what we have been amazed to witness is that of what will happen now? This is not the end of the peace process. It does not mark the end of our worries, our problems and our suffering. It is an important stage along the road.
	It is extremely important to remember two aspects of that. I beg the Minister to take this seriously. First, a connection must be made as regards what we have been amazed to see and admire over the past few days. I refer to the connection that must be made between the recent events and what is happening at the ground level. The attitudes of councillors and the attitudes of local representatives at community level must be addressed. It will be no use if we applaud this "earth-shaking event"--the words used this morning by one newspaper--but then find that the problems of north Belfast continue. There is no sense in applauding what has been done by the Irish Republican Army and what has been said by Sinn Fein, and then finding that Protestant homes continue to be targeted, pensioners attacked and children assaulted on their way to school. Unless we witness a sea change at that level, many people will continue to be sceptical about the euphoria which, quite naturally, has been expressed in regard to the recent developments.
	The second aspect that I ask the Minister to take on board and convey to his colleagues is that the response we now seek in what is a new scenario is a new sense of hope for the ordinary, decent Roman Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland. The stop-go scenario of the local administration, brought about by party political reasons which we all accept, has become a generally frustrating influence for all people right across the community. People comment that it is impossible to predict the future. It is impossible to be certain that bread-and-butter issues such as hospitals, education and transport will be dealt with by the devolved administration. As a result, the natural reaction has been a growing sense of frustration with what many had welcomed; namely, devolution. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the danger emanating from the general sense of frustration with the stop-go scenario and that he will convey that difficulty to his colleagues in another place. If we can transmit a vision of hope for Northern Ireland, one that has been rekindled over the past 48 hours, then a great deal will have been accomplished.
	I should like to make a final point. Does the Minister agree that, so far in our debate, one element has not been mentioned? I speak from pastoral experience. I wonder whether the House is conscious of the many, many people who have found the events of the past two days almost impossible to contemplate in terms of their sorrow, suffering and hurt? I refer to the bereaved families of those who have been murdered in the terrorist campaign and who now say, "What was the point?". Is human history now going to move on, and will people like myself and my colleagues be left to try to teach a sense of proportion in the healing process?
	I believe that those are the considerations that we must keep on board as we thank God for the progress that has been made over the past 48 hours.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Eames. Yesterday evening the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, initiated a debate in this House in which many moving speeches were made in respect of the issues raised by the noble Lord in his remarks. The debate was directed entirely towards the victims of paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland, whether they had been driven away from their own part of the United Kingdom to live in England or Wales, or whether they remained fearful in their own homes. I think that I have paraphrased fairly what was said by most noble Lords and certainly what was said most eloquently by the noble Baroness.
	I recognise and acknowledge the points made by the noble Lord. We are asking those who have suffered to commit themselves to great acts. That is because the vast majority of us have not suffered, but we can recognise that it is unimaginable suffering. The noble Lord also asked about a sense of perspective. Of course I agree with him. He asked what would happen now. In response to that I think that the central and critical point, which cannot be overlaboured, is that we must maintain the dynamic. The Government have responded very promptly--and that response has nothing to do with party politics. We are grateful for the support that Mr Duncan Smith has given and for the tone of the questioning here. General de Chastelain must continue his work. Attitudes on the ground of course have got to change, and there are some glimmerings of minimal hope in the earlier responses from some of the loyalist groups.
	I recognise and respect the scepticism which those who live in Northern Ireland are bound to feel. Their scepticism will be diminished only by a proven improvement in their quality of life. I agree with the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Eames, that they are not really asking for anything other than what they are entitled to--namely, the opportunity to live a decent life and the hope that their children may have a better one. It is not an enormous ambition, but they have been failed over a very long period of time.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what he said about the tenor of the debate last night.
	If, as the Minister has told us, the Government are to consider taking no further action against people who might otherwise have been tried and convicted for murder, would it be unreasonable in the negotiations which I presume will continue with the heads of the parties--in particular with Sinn Fein, IRA and the loyalist groups--to say to them that there could be a quid pro quo for this by them putting the word out that everyone who has been exiled shall be allowed to return?
	It is not an enormous gesture, but it would be an extremely important one as far as the communities are concerned. Nothing could give a simpler but greater assurance that things are changing than that. It is in their power to do it; they have been able to turn the tap off before. Presumably they could say to the paramilitaries who are terrorising their own communities, "You will do this no longer and the people you have expelled will return and be left to lead a peaceful life". I hope that may be considered as a quid pro quo.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I recognise and sympathise with the thrust of what the noble Baroness said. I am not myself a participant in any negotiations, but I shall certainly personally ensure that the point that was made, and well made, in our earlier debates on these topics is transmitted to the Secretary of State.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope that I will not be accused of puncturing the prevailing euphoria, but what proportion of the IRA's weapons will be put "beyond use", to use the noble and learned Lord's words, and how permanently will they remain beyond use? After all, pouring concrete into a bunker containing weapons does not automatically guarantee their permanent and total destruction.
	Secondly, how lethal are the weapons which will be initially decommissioned? Are we talking about rifles, revolvers and automatic pistols, many of them of 19th-century or early 20th-century design, or are we talking about the serious stuff--mortars, rocket launchers, heavy machine guns, surface-to-air missiles and Semtex?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the answers to the noble Lord's questions are to be found in the report of General de Chastelain, which is dated 23rd October of this year. He reported yesterday to Dr Reid and to Mr John O'Donoghue, who is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the Irish Republic. The report states:
	"On 6th August 2001 the Commission reported that agreement had been reached with the IRA on a method to put IRA arms completely and verifiably beyond use. This would be done in such a way as to involve no risk to the public and avoid the possibility of misappropriation by others".
	The critical paragraph--and, after all, one is not talking about a babe-in-arms; General de Chastelain knows the context in which he is operating--states:
	""We have now witnessed an event--which we regard as significant--in which the IRA has put a quantity of arms completely beyond use".
	And, in regard to the noble Lord's question,
	"The material in question includes arms, ammunition and explosives".
	The report goes on to state in paragraph 3:
	"We are satisfied that the arms in question have been dealt with in accordance with the scheme and regulations".
	That, of course, is the statutory decommissioning scheme. The report continues:
	"We are also satisfied that it would not further the process of putting all arms beyond use were we to provide further details of this event".
	Paragraph 4 states:
	"We will continue our contact with the IRA representative in the pursuit of our mandate".
	Therefore I am not in a position--nor would it be prudent, sensible or responsible--to go beyond what the General said as recently as yesterday.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, who is waiting patiently to make his maiden speech, I have been asked to remind noble Lords that our first debate was interrupted by Statements. Of our two-and-a-half hours we have already used 41 minutes; therefore 109 minutes remain. The time is now 5.26 p.m.; the debate will therefore conclude in 109 minutes' time at 7.15 p.m. I should also mention that we are near the start of the speakers' list and we are already running seven minutes over time. If Back-Benchers take more than their allocated time it will be at the expense of Front Bench spokesmen. Noble Lords should remember that as soon as the clock shows five minutes their five minutes' speaking time is up.

Public Service

Lord Chan: My Lords, it is an honour to follow such distinguished noble Lords in the debate. I had not expected it to be such a momentous occasion, where I would be speaking immediately after the Statements on Afghanistan and Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, with some trepidation that I present my maiden speech.
	First, I thank all members of staff who have been so very helpful and courteous to me during my induction into your Lordships' House. They have demonstrated so eloquently the concept of service for which your Lordships' House is renowned. I also thank colleagues from all sides of the House for their warm welcome.
	I intend to explore the issue of dissatisfaction in and with the health service. Here I declare an interest. I was a consultant paediatrician in an academic department for almost 30 years before moving into public health.
	A MORI poll in March this year found that 89 per cent of the public trust their doctors to tell the truth. The same proportion is fairly satisfied or very satisfied with the way doctors do their jobs. Therefore we may conclude that the public continue to place their trust in doctors.
	Other surveys repeatedly show that patients want more than the average seven minutes' consultation time with the general practitioners. GPs are also dissatisfied with this inadequate consultation time. Consultation time is even more constrained by this routine when the patient requires an interpreter because of insufficient English. In these circumstances, all doctors prolong the consultation for as long as is necessary.
	People are using the health service more than ever before. Therefore, although the number of patients registered per GP has fallen to 1,800 today, the number of patient consultations per GP has increased since 1984 by nearly 800 every year to 9,000 consultations per doctor per year in 1996. On average, each patient consults a GP five times per year. Children under five years and people over 65 see a GP seven times a year. It is this increasing demand on the time of our GPs and the shortage of general practitioners that have led to dissatisfaction and low morale among primary care doctors, who continue to manage 90 to 95 per cent of consultations without referring on to specialists in hospital.
	Nursing shortages based on the March 2001 NHS vacancy survey are around 20,000 across the United Kingdom. For the year 2000, one in three new entrants to the United Kingdom Nursing Register were from outside the United Kingdom. In order to realise the shared goal of reshaping health services to meet the needs of patients, it is vital that the current nursing shortages are reversed. This means ensuring that nurses want to stay in the NHS, encouraging trained nurses to return to the service, and making nursing an attractive option for new recruits. Meanwhile, many nurses are struggling to provide good patient care on under-staffed wards.
	The concept of service in the NHS is alive and well. However, increasing demands on primary healthcare and on hospital treatment--with limited beds and serious staff shortages among doctors, nurses and in the professions allied to medicine--make it very difficult for staff to demonstrate personal warmth and give undivided attention to patients and their carers. We also have the smallest number of doctors per 1,000 of the population in Europe. That is further compounded by the increasing verbal and physical abuse thrown at hospital staff by patients and their families. Long working hours with high levels of stress force NHS staff to concentrate on clinical and technical aspects of treatment rather than on the warmth of personal care. Of course, I accept that in all situations doctors and nurses should always try to give comfort to their patients.
	In conclusion, the spirit of service in the public sector, especially in the National Health Service, is alive and well and can be fostered if we manage the expectation of patients, carers and service users. We need to communicate clearly the reality of what can reasonably be achieved with the resources that are available today.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to convey the congratulations of the whole House to the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on his maiden speech. It was an interesting, thoughtful and important contribution. The noble Lord brings to this House great knowledge of both race relations and health service issues which will be invaluable to us. He was made an MBE for services to the Chinese community in this country and has been chairman of the Chinese in Britain Forum since 1996. The noble Lord has served on the Commission for Racial Equality and on the Home Secretary's Standing Advisory Council on Race Relations. As noble Lords have heard, by profession the noble Lord, Lord Chan, is a paediatrician; and between 1994 and 1997 he served as the director of the NHS Ethnic Health Unit. He is currently a visiting professor in ethnic health at the University of Liverpool. With such a record, the noble Lord will be a great addition to this House and we look forward eagerly to his future contributions.
	I begin my remarks on the Motion by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for instigating this timely debate. Today, we are concentrating on service in the public sector--an area that faces many challenges. Over a number of years, our public services and those who work in them have been at the sharp end of the nation's considerations. As those considerations have grown and expanded, so have the expectations of the public. As expectations have risen, so too have the all-too-familiar criticisms of and scepticism about our public services--usually without justification. But when a band wagon starts, it is very difficult to stop.
	I want to concentrate in particular on those who work in the public sector. As a former national officer of the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union, I worked with and for thousands of members employed in the public sector. The MSF has within it a section specifically for those who work in "not for profit" organisations. The union's members are in both full-time and part-time employment, across a broad spectrum of jobs. Many of them are in directly "caring" roles: in childcare, disability care or elder care. As such, they are dedicated and committed personnel--usually, they work for an organisation because they believe passionately in what that organisation was established for.
	But therein lies the rub. Because they are dedicated and committed, because they have a vocational interest in their work, their rewards in terms of pay are usually at the lower end of the wage scale. Why? Because dedication, commitment and vocation have always been thought of by too many people in this country as "rewards in themselves". Such workers obviously receive pleasure from their roles, it is said, so they cannot expect large sums of money as well. Usually, such workers do not expect large remuneration, but I submit that they deserve enough to live on without constant worry, and that they deserve acknowledgement of their achievement.
	It is far easier to blame than to praise. It is far easier to find a scapegoat than to ensure that the public service system will uplift and support those who work in it and those who are users of it. As our hospitals, schools and other public services were run down over recent decades and as care was transferred into the community without the back-up systems or resources to support it, I heard directly from public sector workers about the effects upon them and those who relied on them. They genuinely believed that they should be able to give more help to the users of those services but were often unable to carry out even minimum functions and were, therefore, left feeling frustrated and angry, indeed in despair.
	Our public services need investment. They need systems and structural changes. They need a government who apply themselves to their well-being. Although I accept that such changes cannot be effected overnight and that substantial steps have already been taken towards those ends, there is still a long way to go. That is why I particularly welcome the latest government proposals on public sector reform. The Prime Minister has stated on a number of occasions recently that the Government have,
	"a mission to change and reform public services".
	Therein lies much hope for the future.
	I could continue, but time does not permit. I ask my noble friend the Minister to outline in her reply the initiatives that the Government will be taking to effect the attitudinal changes that are necessary; what they will do to raise the morale and self-fulfilment of public sector workers; and, above all, how they propose to ensure high national standards throughout the public sector.

Lord Condon: My Lords, perhaps I may say how grateful I am for the warmth of the welcome and the generous support that I have received from everyone associated with your Lordships' House. I also express my gratitude to the many noble Lords who have called me "young man" on more occasions in the past three months than has happened over the past 30 years. It has enormously pleased me and I have revised my life expectancy accordingly!
	Our country is at its best when we have a vibrant and successful private sector complemented by an efficient, confident and just public sector. I have been privileged to work in both. The service ethos is certainly not unique to the public sector. It runs through the private sector as well. Both sectors bring complementary benefits to our society. Having spent most of my life in the public sector, I can say that the service ethos is at the core of job satisfaction in that sector. The sense of vocation and service, the sense of serving one's fellow citizen, is vital to attracting, retaining and motivating people within the public sector.
	Earlier speakers asked whether the service ethos was alive and well in the public sector. Like them, I believe that it is alive and well--but I suggest that at present it is "under-nourished". We owe it to the public sector to find ways to nurture, to celebrate and to encourage the service ethos within it. That could be done very efficiently in three ways.
	There are three aspects on which I shall comment briefly: recognition, respect and reward. Recognition is vital for those serving in the public sector. So often our public services are denigrated and criticised. We must find more innovative ways to describe their successes not just in terms of overall services but in terms of the many individuals within those services at all levels who carry out on a daily basis acts of heroism and dedication way above and beyond the normal call of duty whether that is in nursing, policing, the fire service, teaching, the health service or in the many other services which serve us so well.
	In speaking of recognition, I was disappointed to hear yesterday in your Lordships' House that not a single police officer will currently receive a Jubilee Medal to celebrate Her Majesty's glorious reign. I admire the notion that medals will be given to uniformed military personnel with five or more years' service, but I believe that the same criteria should be applied to the police service. I have done some research and I understand that that would cost just in excess of £2 million. I believe that that would be money well spent to celebrate the service of policemen and women to Her Majesty the Queen.
	I turn to the issue of respect. Our major public services are quite properly due for reform, in many cases long overdue reform. However, they would like their professional views to be respected and to be considered at the table of reform. The enlightened members of those professions know that they must reform, but they would like their views respected.
	On the issue of reward, no one goes into the public sector for wealth creation, or, if they do, they are more likely to face a prison sentence than a knighthood because their activities will almost certainly be unlawful. However, they do not want their service to be exploited. They do not want their sense of vocation to lead to hardship. We must be careful to review the necessary pay and review bodies which ensure that our vital public services are kept up to date in terms of pay and conditions.
	Finally, I have spent the past two weeks in America where I have seen how the celebration of the emergency services and the public services generally has provided a rallying point for patriotism, hope, optimism and plans for the future. I do not believe that we need to await or contemplate a similar tragedy here before we seek to recognise, respect and reward our own equally brave services personnel who contribute so much to our life. I commend the Motion to your Lordships.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on his maiden speech. How appropriate that he chose to address us on the subject of service as he is a distinguished public servant. He joined the Metropolitan Police in 1967. He worked his way up and was commissioner from 1993 to 2000. He knows the realities of public service, the satisfactions and the accountability, but he is also aware of the hurtful criticism to which we sometimes subject our public servants when they handle difficult situations on our behalf. He has carried that well. I hope that we shall hear him speak often in your Lordships' House.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, that the concept of service applies equally to the private sector as to the public sector. I spent my working life in the private sector. After all, what is the concept of service? I believe that it is the desire to deliver satisfaction to the giver and to the receiver. Sadly, in the private sector that important concept has been pushed aside by the clamour for profits and fear of competition. More thoughtful businessmen know that companies are profitable and competitive if they can deliver satisfaction and service. Indeed, it is because business may have got these priorities wrong that some think that it cannot be trusted to deliver public services. Only yesterday the Association of British Insurers, which controls one-quarter of all the shares quoted on the London Stock Exchange, laid down some pretty tough new guidance about social responsibility.
	I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the concept of service bringing satisfaction applies not only to companies but also to individuals. That surely is the only way to explain the huge amount of voluntary and philanthropic work described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. People get satisfaction from putting something back into the pot, as they say in Yorkshire.
	The concept of service not only extends to people who volunteer but also to people who give. People give to an incredible number of causes. They respond to political needs and natural catastrophes. They support the arts through museums and universities. They support searches for the causes of disease and remedies for injustice and the improvement of social conditions. All of that is fuelled by the wish to be of service to others. It is not done for personal profit or gain. Indeed, my right honourable friend Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, recently set up the giving campaign which is led by the noble Lord, Lord Joffe. The objective of that campaign is to encourage a culture of giving and to increase the number of donors and the amount of donations.
	But perhaps when the right reverend Prelate called our attention to the concept of service in the public sector he referred to the delivery of public services. It has long been part of the Labour philosophy that good public services make a major contribution to a fairer society. The discussion has concerned how those services can be delivered efficiently and with a high degree of satisfaction both to the givers and to the receivers--back to satisfaction again.
	The Conservative government used privatisation to break up huge monolithic public services--water, gas, electricity, the telephone and the railways--in the hope that local smaller organisations would be more efficient and closer to the consumer and in that way would deliver a higher degree of satisfaction and service. That kind of outsourcing of public services works where there is competition, as failure means going out of business. But where there is not really an alternative, as in education, as described by my noble friend Lord Peston, the whole question of privatised delivery of public services is uncertain.
	Certainly the market is a great stimulus to establishing high standards and aligning the interests and common purpose so essential to delivering quality public services. Yes, quality public services do require constant progress and innovations which the market stimulates. People are no longer prepared to accept that the standards of public service can somehow be less than the standards expected in the private sector. Yet if business wants to be trusted to deliver public services, it must not just pander to consumerism and crass commercialism. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford told us, the business of business is to serve society. So there is a place for public services in the enterprise culture and the market has a role to play in encouraging innovation and improvements. It is a difficult balance which the Government are trying to find; I wish them every success.

Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has invited us to talk about the concept of public service. I hope that your Lordships will therefore forgive me for being conceptual. First, what makes a service public rather than private? A public service is not the same as what economists call a public good. A public good is public because you cannot slice it up into little bits for individual consumption. You can buy a meal at a restaurant or you can buy a slice of butter but you cannot buy a bit of streetlighting. Streetlights are public goods and therefore have to be paid for by public contribution.
	Healthcare and education are not technically public goods. They can be consumed in individual packages exactly like meals in a restaurant and therefore you can readily charge for them. Is it just an outworn prejudice to think of them as public rather than private services? I do not think so. We think that healthcare and education should be provided for the good of society whether or not people want them or are able to pay for them. Moreover, we think that they should be distributed as equally as possible.
	The reasons that people think like this are complicated and I do not have time to go into them. But we do think in that way and the fact that we do so affects the motives of those who choose to work in those services. By and large, whatever companies now say, they are full of the notion of corporate social responsibility, and so on--I believe that people go into the private sector mainly to earn money. Their satisfaction comes from the incomes they earn. I know that that is not a complete explanation but as a broad generalisation it is true.
	However, it is not true for most of the people who choose to work as doctors, nurses or teachers. Much of their job satisfaction comes from doing good. They regard their calling as honourable, even as noble. That gives rise to the problem. For 20 years, the main thrust of public service reform has been to replace public service motives for action by commercial incentives. The language of markets has replaced the language of service. We have been told to think of hospitals and schools as businesses selling services to customers and clients. We look for all kinds of market mechanisms short of actual profits and losses to hold those business "accountable" to their "customers". The noble Lord, Lord Plant, was a pioneer of what is called the "quasi-market" approach to the reform of public services. I shall be fascinated to hear what he thinks in retrospect about that.
	I have no doubt that a big shake-up was necessary. The typical vice of the public service ethic is self-righteousness which too easily becomes indifference to the wishes and needs of those whom the public servants are meant to serve. Furthermore, a public service ethos is no justification for a blank cheque. And just because material incentives are weaker in the public services, it is extraordinarily difficult for them to adapt to new demands made of them.
	However, in trying to make public services more like markets, we run the great risk of drying up the springs of genuinely valuable motives for action. The loss of that motive will make the services more expensive in the long run. As has been pointed out in the debate, people do not go into them to make money.
	I do not claim to see my way clearly through the conundrum: that one has to introduce accountability and control but at the same time take care not to destroy the valuable motives which cause people to go into those occupations. At the very least, politicians and public persons could start talking a different language which more adequately reflects the nature of public services. They must not talk so much about buying and selling but more about responsibility, obligation and the nobility of the calling. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has put us all in his debt by reminding us what that language is.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many others, I am pleased to take part in this debate moved by my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It is a subject which sits between many of the problems and opportunities which face us today.
	I make three observations. First, I begin by focusing on the implicit models of public sector service which operate both in the United Kingdom as well as in Europe and the United States. It is clear that the public service sector has had a long and noble tradition in this country but it is not necessarily the only way to arrange our affairs. As someone with close family ties with Scandinavia, I am consistently struck by the level of resourcing which goes into the public sector in countries such as Denmark. However, I also draw attention to the fact that in much of northern Europe healthcare provision is the responsibility of private insurance.
	Looking in the opposite direction, public service in the United States was seen until recently as the poor relation to the world of commerce. As with much in our economic life, the United Kingdom seems to sit somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic, providing an alternative model and one which I believe we should value highly. We should have confidence in our public institutions despite those very necessary times when we look for the checks and balances. It is a very British trait to knock and undermine the very sources of stability and democracy which are so widely admired around the globe.
	Secondly, like many of my fellow bishops, I have close working relationships with local government and have been impressed by the response of local authorities, for example in Gosport and Havant, to the Local Government Act 2000 which calls upon such authorities to produce a community strategy that acknowledges the place not only of the public sector but also of those working in private, business, community and voluntary spheres. Through the local strategic partnership there is both the opportunity and the duty to create strategic alliances which acknowledge the value and mutual interdependence of those areas. Gone are the days when in some Stalinist centralised view the state is able to legislate for the minutiae of social interaction. Equally, gone are the days when it was believed that business was the answer to all our problems. We are now, thankfully, in a position where we acknowledge and value service in all its various guises, whether public, commercial community or voluntary; and, of course, in this the public sector has a vital if self-limiting role.
	Thirdly, conventional economic measures such as GDP take no account of the notion of service, whether in the public or voluntary sectors. Most of our key public services whether in health, social services, prison or the law courts are increasingly dependent upon voluntary support, whether through charitable funding or the provision of vital support services. Where would we be if government had to pay for school governors? How many hospitals benefit from the league of friends not only financially but through awareness and the generation of good will? How many environmental projects rely on key alliances with community groups who give freely of their time?
	Fundamental to both public and voluntary service is the belief that individuals make a significant contribution and that is a strong motivator to society. Oddly enough, the very attempt by government--welcome in itself--to provide funding for voluntary services and the concomitant apparatus of financial management and funding application can have the opposite effect of what is intended. It can create a professionalised bureaucracy which is focused on the next funding round and dissipate the energy which provided its original vision. The role of government must be to provide resources for public services but acknowledge that motivation differs between the sectors. This is particularly poignant for the faith communities of our country. As well as supporting their own community lives, they carry the burden of responsibility for historic buildings for which they receive little or no funding from government. That can skew, for example, a parish's focus towards bricks and mortar and away from other wider purposes equally inherent in the working of that faith vision.
	In conclusion, I should like to make a more general comment on the Question which may complement the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, and the other maiden speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor. As we deliberate the role of public service, it is crucial that we at least try to view it from everyone else's perspective. It is very easy to create a culture in which those on the fringe are judged by those at its heart. That is a somewhat forceful way of saying that we really all have to be in this together.

Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, the idea of public service is much invoked in debate about the reform of public services, but little analysed. Does public service have more than rhetorical and sentimental value? I believe that it does, and I have two reasons for saying that. First, there is the link between the public sector and the provision of certain basic goods such as health, education and welfare, which impinge directly on human well-being, and physical security, in the case of the police service and the fire brigade.
	If those services are not provided for properly, well-being will be lowered. In certain circumstances, it may be that the effects of that are irreversible. For example, if people miss education or health opportunities, or if policing fails, the effects may be irreversible. In this country, most people feel that these services should be provided by government out of taxation.
	Secondly, it is vital that there should be a high degree of trust on the part of both government and consumers that services are being properly provided for and operated in the interests of the needs of consumers and not in the interests of producers. The ethic of service can provide a basis for that trust. Service provides a constraint on sectional and producer interests in the public sector and allows government and consumers to have a degree of trust in the provision of services that have a basic effect on people's lives.
	The alternative view is that associated with public choice economists. Many Members of your Lordships' House know much more about this than I do, but the view which is favoured by people on the Right is that there is no such ethical realm as that of service in relation to the public sector. They say that people entering the public sector do not step into a different ethical realm from that of the market or the voluntary sector and that people are motivated by utility maximisation and self-interest, whichever area of life they are in. That applies as much to the public sector as the private sector. It is argued that that is the best explanation that can be provided for the growth of the public sector in western society. It is the result of the utility maximising behaviour of those employed in the public sector.
	On that view, the institutional reform of the public sector should not pay much attention, if any, to the idea of service, but should look to reforms that constrain self-interest or engage self-interest in ways that will produce benefits.
	I would argue that even on that public choice model, one cannot escape the problem of trust. If one considers the kinds of constraints that public choice theorists put on self-interested behaviour, contract is a main focus. The imposition of a kind of contract on individuals in the public sector will constrain their behaviour better than anything else. While that may be so, it does not avoid the problem of trust. However specific a contract is, there is always a gap between a set of rules and how the rules are implemented. That point has been well known since Aristotle. If there is always a gap between rules and their implementation, one has to use judgment to apply them. How can one do that if the rules do not give the answer? One has to trust people to apply judgment in an appropriate way.
	If we devise institutions on David Hume's injunction that we had better treat people as if they were knaves, we may end up driving out good motivation, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. If we adopt a wholly contractual and rule-governed approach to behaviour, we shall end up with people fulfilling their contractual obligations and no more, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
	We cannot continue devising rules and contracts to constrain behaviour. There has to be a degree of trust and judgment, which must be exercised against the background of the ethos of service. The service ethic is important in that respect. I certainly do not think that we can use the service ethic as the whole basis for thinking about the public sector, and I do not regret what I did in relation to quasi markets. Nevertheless, it is important that we do not end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The Earl of Rosslyn: My Lords, in thanking the right reverend Prelate for this opportunity, I should like to say something from a policing perspective. I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police where I am a commander with responsibility for the force's training. It is therefore a great pleasure to follow my noble friend and former commissioner.
	Martin Luther King said,
	"life's most urgent and persistent question is what are you doing for others?".
	Every five weeks a new group of recruits arrive at Hendon and answer that question, committing themselves to public service as police officers. Last year the youngest was 18 and the oldest 49, which suggests that the instinct to serve can appear at any time. Throughout the country new officers express that commitment in the oath of allegiance and seek to be true to it in organisations separated by geography, but joined through common values of duty and care. In London, officers swear that oath as constables of the Metropolitan Police Service, recognising that while force remains a necessary part of law enforcement, policing is underpinned by notions of consent and accountability. They commit to serve "without favour or affection" to
	"cause the peace to be kept"
	and to
	"prevent all offences against persons and property".
	That is an honourable but challenging commitment, and one from which we sometimes fall short. It reflects the fact that the essence of policing is bound up not in confrontation but in protection and service.
	Writing in 1829, when the whole of Kensington was protected by six parish constables, whom he remarked "were not invariably sober", Robert Peel emphasised that good policing was not about the
	"invasion of liberty but a restraint of licence".
	The first instruction book made explicit this public service ethic. A constable should be,
	"civil and attentive to all persons, never suffering himself to be moved by any language or threats . . . Such conduct will induce well-disposed bystanders to assist him should he so require".
	That recognised that the future of the new police depended almost entirely on public acceptance. Today it means that a safe, just and tolerant society can only be built by working with others. For that reason, we should not define the concept of service in an exclusive way. In developing policing doctrine, we should take every opportunity to involve others. One does not have to join the police service to contribute to the service of policing. We already have special constables who the statute says:
	"enjoy all the powers, privileges and protections of a Constable".
	They also face the same dangers and challenges and their families have the same anxieties and pressures. We have much to thank them for. There is a range of ways in which active citizens can participate in policing and which help to shape the conception of what good service looks like.
	The concept of service in a policing context is far- reaching when one stops to consider its ultimate demands. Tomorrow Her Majesty the Queen will visit Hendon to be present at the dedication of the Metropolitan Police Book of Remembrance. We shall recall our 876 colleagues who have died in the course of duty between 1830 and 14th March this year. Though separated by 171 years, those officers are united by a common bond of duty and honour, which led them to forsake their own interests in the service of others.
	When the book is dedicated, it will be opened at tomorrow's date, for which there are five entries. The last two are: Francis Joseph O'Neil, died 1980, aged 31. While on plain-clothes duty he was stabbed in the heart by a suspect whom he was questioning in a chemist's shop at Waterloo. Despite being fatally wounded, he attempted to make an arrest before he collapsed and died. The last one refers to Kulwant Singh Sidhu, died 1999, aged 24. Late at night he attended a call to suspects on a roof in Twickenham. In the early hours he was found inside the premises, having been fatally injured by falling through a glass skylight while pursuing the suspects. It is surely appropriate that the book and memorial in their honour should be at Hendon where our newest recruits begin their career. The humanity and sacrifice of those officers will be an example and inspiration to them, as it is to us all.
	In 1754, Saunders Welch wrote:
	"Let the service of the public be the greatest motive of . . . your office. This will keep you from wanton acts of power".
	Today, the abuse of authority by police officers is regrettably not unknown, but there are few organisations more prepared to confront malpractice from within. The service of the public remains policing's most enduring ethic, manifested not just in great heroism, but in daily acts of kindness, help and reassurance. The underlying philosophy of policing remains rooted in the concept of service, and long may it remain so.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I add my congratulations for the four outstanding maiden speeches in this debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has given us the opportunity to debate this subject at an appropriate time. The grim events in New York last month and all that has followed have brought home that in the frenzy of our materialist preoccupations, we should never take for granted the dedicated men and women in our public services, both civil and military. They have provided, and continue to provide, a powerful reminder of what the values of a decent civilised society should be about. That has been evident not just since 11th September. In the foot and mouth epidemic and in this week's floods, we have looked to the civil and military services for their professionalism, effectiveness and commitment.
	In my past work with Voluntary Service Overseas and Oxfam, I have repeatedly seen at first hand that same spirit of selfless service among thousands of volunteers and staff in the United Kingdom and abroad. It is something very special.
	We like to think that we have moved into a post-ideological age, but have we? Our preoccupation with the market and with price as the most valid determinant smacks to me of perhaps an unprecedented ideological commitment in the United Kingdom and beyond. Of course we need a vibrant private sector, but it must be characterised by drive, financial discipline, entrepreneurship and vision, not dominated by short-term returns for shareholders, astronomical remuneration of directors, asset-stripping, blinkered business school core-business talk and greed. If the private sector is to be seen and encouraged as a key pillar of society, as it should be, company reports should invariably be convincingly about their social contribution as well as their profitability. There are many such companies and it is tragic that their contribution and commitment to service and to the community is frequently eclipsed by the sordid stories of the irresponsible opportunists.
	Regulation is required, but it is seldom creative. There have to be the values and social priorities in the culture of the private sector itself. Experience and common sense demonstrate beyond doubt that there are social priorities in which the provision of services to all to a high standard will make more sense in the public sector; for example, where meaningful or sane competition will be absent or where the returns on the social investment, while always demanding efficiency and value for money, should not be unduly distorted by an over-riding requirement to make profits--in other words, where it is the high standard that matters most. Education and health are good examples, but so are other services where the quality of what is provided will underpin society and the rest of our economic activity. Large parts of our transport system, and, arguably, water and power, are among them.
	The long-term sustainability of our society also requires hard-headed pragmatism on the relative merits of public and private provision in terms of what should be an overarching priority at all times--the protection and enhancement of the environment.
	The essence of good governance is surely to achieve the right dynamic, rational and responsible mix between the private and public sectors; between the thrust of the private sector at its best and intervention for the common good.
	The systematic denigration of too many public servants and public sector workers in recent decades has been tragic. There has been a refusal to recognise the economic value of commitment within a sector that the employees feel is primarily about service. It is hardly surprising if much demoralisation has inevitably followed.
	The prevailing message seems too often to have been that those who have what it takes make money rather than championing those who endeavour to work for the quality of our society and unashamedly for others. Teachers, lecturers, social workers, health workers, postal workers, transport workers, municipal, rural and amenity workers and public service workers of all kinds should be celebrated as models for us all, not just in the aftermath of 11th September, but all the time, because they are working for a civilised reality with the wealth that we generate. By the same token, wealth producers--those who really produce wealth--should also be accorded pride of place.
	All that should be evident in our value system in a cultural recognition of service. It should not be merely a matter of sentiment. While those who seek to serve professionally are invariably motivated by more than material reward, that sense of commitment should never be exploited. I believe that a decent society is one in which it is absolutely clear from the conditions of employment that such people enjoy how much we value the service provided by our public servants and those who provide service in a whole host of different ways.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I think that everyone will agree that we have heard some excellent speeches today. I join in the congratulation to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on choosing such an excellent Motion, which refers to,
	"the concept of service, especially in the public sector".
	I shall concentrate on that.
	I very much regret that I cannot refer to all the many excellent speeches, not least the maiden speeches. However, one of them fits in with what I intend to say. The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, spoke of how passionately he felt about the denigration of politicians. Needless to say, I very much agree with him, having shared both his profession and one of his jobs.
	Not surprisingly, there are strong views not only about politicians, but about the denigration of others in the public service, who, as we have heard, do such a wonderful job generally. Most politicians I know from all parties sincerely hold their strong views and speak them clearly and honestly. Even when I disagree with them--which I frequently do--I know that they hold their views very sincerely.
	My concept of public service began when I came out of the forces after the war and, together with many others, decided, perhaps naively and idealistically, that the only way I could achieve something in public life and have a practical effect on what could or could not be done was as a politician. In political life we could not only talk about issues, as we did quite frequently, but also perhaps one day do something about them, both locally and nationally. I felt that my future should be in the Labour Party, although I very much respect those who chose other parties, because they did so for the same good reasons. I worked locally and, after some time, have managed to spend 37 years in one House or the other trying to fulfil a public service. My idea of a public service means just that--doing something for the public, both locally and nationally. I chose to make my contribution in that way.
	Sadly, the only opportunity that I had to carry out an executive role in government was as Chief Secretary to the Treasury--a post the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, also held later. I had entered into that area of political life from public life in the hope that I would be able to play a part in improving public services and spending public money. Unfortunately, during virtually the whole five years that I spent as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, economic circumstances ensured that I cut expenditure in precisely the areas that I had come into public life to improve. Of course, I told myself that, in the economic circumstances, that was essential. I told myself that eventually it would all come right and that I would be able to carry on with the job that I really wanted to do. Unfortunately, I left office at that time.
	On the other hand, the aims that brought me into public life more than 50 years ago have been carried through by others during that length of time, and less; namely, the improvements in services that I wanted to see under successive governments.
	I hope that the present Government will do much more than I was able to achieve. I am no longer quite as naive as I was in those days, although I hope that, to some extent, the idealism remains. However, experience has ensured that that idealism is tinged with a sense of realism, and I am no longer one who expects too much from any government. But I certainly hope that, as well as improving public services in this country, the present Government will do many of the things that I mentioned to help to close the gap between the rich and the poor, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world.
	Although I no longer expect the Government to do too much, I hope that, in replying to the debate, my noble friend will be able to assure me that a great deal will be done. I still hope--after all these years one still has hope, if nothing else--that this Government, whom generally I support although at times I am a little critical, will do better than I managed to do. I hope that they will improve public services to help those in the world generally and in the UK. However, under the present circumstances, I say that without deluding myself.

Lord Parekh: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for initiating a debate on the extremely important question of service, especially in the public sector. Briefly, I want to say something about the importance of the public sector in the collective life of any society and then to say something about how we can get the best out of that sector.
	During the past two decades or so, we have come to believe that the public sector is the relic of a nanny state, reminiscent of an age in which the state knew what was best for its citizens and ran their lives from cradle to grave. One may also see it as the last resort of those who have been unable to succeed in the private sector. Those are wholly false readings of the nature and place of the public sector in our collective life.
	The public sector is a vital expression of our communal life, which it consolidates and nurtures. It reflects our collective commitment that certain basic conditions of the good life should be available equally to all our citizens. Although the market has a legitimate place in our lives, it has inherent limitations: it is unplanned, its consequences are unpredictable and it bears particularly heavily on the weak and vulnerable sectors of our society. It also privileges profit and efficiency over public spirit and mutual concern.
	Therefore, we rightly want to ensure that the things which are essential for a good life and which should be available equally to all our citizens are taken out of the market and made the responsibility of the public sector or the state. That is the only way to ensure that the market economy does not degenerate into a market society and distort our scheme of values. Education, health, public utilities, transport and so on, which are all concerned with the quality of national life and require long-term planning and national co-ordination, rightly fall within the public sector.
	The public sector binds us together as a community, forms our collective capital, which we cherish and pass on to future generations, and, inevitably, constitutes an object of collective pride. When the number of our fellow citizens taking out private health insurance rises from 2 million to 7 million in 20 years, and when the number of children turning to private schools increases threefold in as many years, we have reasons to feel concerned. Those things fragment society into different groups which have very little common interest to bind them together, limited understanding of each others' needs and little sympathy for each others' predicament. When some members of our society break away from shared communal provisions for the good life, our sense of solidarity is weakened and our character as a community is, to that extent, diminished. All that is so obvious that it hardly needs reiteration, except at a time when we are in danger of forgetting the importance of the public sector.
	The quality of our public services must obviously be of the highest standard. The question is: how do we ensure that that is the case? During the past 100-odd years, we have tried out two major ways of achieving that, and each has its obvious limitations. One is what I might call the "altruistic" model. It relies on a strong public spirit among those who work in the public sector. It appeals to their professional pride, their desire to serve their fellow human beings and to deserve well of the wider society.
	While there is much to be said for that model in an ideal world, it has its limitations. Not all public servants are highly motivated, and some cut corners. They also display the arrogance of expertise and tend to see their clients and consumers as passive objects who should be grateful for such services as they receive. Professional associations cannot always be relied upon to be self-governing because of their tendency to be protective about their own members.
	The other model is based on mistrust. It introduces the ethos of business into public services and relies on the managerial style of carrot and stick. The Government are expected to lay down targets, prescribe performance indicators, constantly audit performance of those involved, punish the laggard and reward the successful, and demand value for money, and so on. This model, which relies on the language of business and management applied to the public sector, is fundamentally flawed. It makes sense in relation to market or material products but not in relation to human beings and human relationships. It is also cynical and manipulative. While it can prevent people from doing their worse, it can never inspire them to do their best. It is also inevitably centralist, bureaucratic and heavy-handed.
	Therefore, I suggest that neither model is particularly applicable to the public sector. We need to rethink our whole approach to public service and find ways to combine the best in both. In other words, we must foster public spirit, professional pride and dedication among those involved in public service, and mobilise their better impulses. But we must also ensure that there is greater accountability, transparency, diversity at the local level, creativity and cost-effectiveness.
	Countless ways have been suggested as to how we might be able to integrate the best in both, and I do not need to repeat those now. The public sector requires not only a spirit of public service but also new investment. I am glad to see that the Government are seized of the importance of that and are beginning to invest very heavily in the public sector.
	Before I end, I express my sincerest apologies that I have long agreed to chair an important meeting elsewhere and that I shall need to leave fairly soon. I very much hope that your Lordships' House will extend to me the Christian spirit of caritas and see no discourtesy in my early departure.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I shall address this subject from a specific angle. My concern is not so much with the provision made for supplying essential services, such as health and education, which at present are matters of great public interest; rather, it relates to the changes taking place in the public service itself, particularly the concept of being a public servant--the "ethos", as some have expressed it.
	I have a lifelong interest in this subject, having been brought up to believe that the distinctive character of our Civil Service was its unique combination of loyalty to the elected government of the day, its political impartiality, and the control of its activities by a Minister, himself answerable to Parliament.
	I was much influenced in these ideas by my father, a well known public servant in his time, who had been Secretary to the Cabinet throughout the Second World War and subsequently Head of the Civil Service and Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. My own professional life of nearly 40 years was spent in the Diplomatic Service whose ideals were those which I have just described and remain the same.
	There have, however, been some interesting and necessary changes and desirable innovations. Take, for example, the role of the political adviser. When serving as a Private Secretary in the Foreign Office in the 1960s I recall the appointment of a political adviser to the then Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart. It was one of the first such appointments, I believe. This adviser was John Harris, later a prominent Member of this House on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
	My recollection of this appointment is very positive. The political adviser was helpful both to the Minister and to the department. As a trusted political ally of the Minister, he could discern or readily discover the potential domestic political impact of policies being considered in the department. Armed with this knowledge he could help the department to formulate its policies in such a way as to cause the minimum domestic political problems for the Minister. This was a valuable contribution and an example of the public service and the political world working together positively.
	Another relevant recollection derives from my three year stint as a Private Secretary to the Prime Minister from 1972 to 1974. For the first two years the Prime Minister was Sir Edward Heath. I judged his Private Office to be an effective, indeed valuable, part of the government machinery. After Sir Edward's party lost the election in February 1974 we all anticipated that his successor would make some changes in the Private Office. Also, we were conscious that Harold Wilson, when he paid visits to No. 10 in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, took the trouble to find out who we were and what we did. We were mostly products of politically unacceptable public schools and had all studied deeply unfashionable subjects in ancient universities. So we felt that the Prime Minister would require a rather different team.
	When the newly appointed Prime Minister arrived at No. 10 from Buckingham Palace there was a great deal to be done in helping him to form his new administration. Clearly the Queen's Government had to be carried on and we all felt it was our duty to help him. Somewhat to our surprise the incoming Prime Minister made no changes to the Private Office staff and I remained in my post for a further year to complete the expected three year cycle. The impression we had from talking to the Prime Minister's political staff was that he wanted to run his Private Office differently in his second term and thought the existing team would do rather well. I mention all this because there have been some recent changes in the staffing arrangements at No. 10 and I shall comment on those briefly in a moment.
	The old system had some advantages. It could be very efficient. The Private Secretaries had a good knowledge of the subjects they handled and an understanding of how the departments they worked with actually performed and functioned. Thus in my own case I knew my parent department quite intimately and also had personal experience of the other subjects I dealt with, which were defence, overseas trade and Northern Ireland. That system also strengthened the role of Ministers in charge of departments, as the Private Secretaries saw it as part of their function to keep Cabinet Ministers properly informed of the Prime Minister's views on current problems.
	The present arrangements have changed all that. The former Private Secretaries are now called policy advisers (I do not know what that means) while the executive tasks are entrusted to persons who may have no personal experience of the public service and, for all I know, may be selected on a personal or political basis. I do not say that there is an objection of an ethical kind to these changes but I do suggest that the new model may be a good deal less satisfactory than the old. In particular, there is a potential for weakening the role of Ministers in charge of departments and their responsibility to Parliament. This is slightly worrying and the recent decision regarding Railtrack is perhaps an illustration of the kind of problem which may arise.
	An overriding aspect is that these changes have all been made by administrative means without public discussion or examination by Parliament. It is this kind of decision which occasionally makes one wonder whether an unwritten constitution is wise in all circumstances. Thus we can no longer claim, as my father did in a series of lectures and essays delivered after his retirement (now the subject of critical examination by the Departments of Politics in our universities) that the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms had created a Civil Service of a non-political character free from party allegiance. That tradition, I regret, is being somewhat undermined and without regard to the long-term consequences. I hope that the new arrangements can be reviewed with these considerations in mind.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like everyone who has been sitting here throughout the debate I have listened to a fascinating range of experiences, which is what this House is best at. Many of them have been, as the Motion suggests, conceptual and philosophical, but I want to introduce what might be termed the grass roots, from my own personal experience.
	When I was a lad I began to work for the Co-operative Movement and I joined the Co-operative Youth Movement. I then began to enjoy and benefit from the voluntary service of a range of people who guided and instructed me; and I have followed the ethics of the Co-operative Movement all my life. It had 10 million voluntary members; 100,000 employees; and introduced the concept of the dividend which, as is well known in the country, was a Co-operative product.
	For 150 years the Co-operative Movement has given back to the community the profits made, in the form of dividend and in other ways. Many businesses in 2000 and 2001 recognise the value of community service and provide the community money in the form of grants and in other ways. My experience as a Member of Parliament must be shared by many on all sides. My eyes were opened as I began to do my job and I realised just how many people gave thousands of hours of their time.
	Before becoming a Member of another place, I was leader of a London borough council at a time when one did not get paid for being a councillor; I complained about that. I am glad that councillors now receive something but in my time they did not. We would go to old people's clubs, CAB meetings and works meetings. In 1976, when the Queen celebrated 25 years on the Throne, I remember particularly the street parties, the gaiety, the laughter, and the contribution to uplifting the community spirit, all provided by volunteers. There were trestle tables down the streets with sandwiches, cakes, rock buns and balloons and all the rest of it. It has remained with me all my life. It was the same in 1981 when Prince Charles and Diana were married.
	When I think of public service, I think of it in small terms. I think, for instance, of the ancient Order of Foresters and many other friendly societies which may have professional organisations but which rely on the work of hundreds of thousands of volunteers every week. I think also of other organisations, such as residents' associations. I still keep up my links in Enfield. When I meet, say, 100 people who are committee members, I know that they represent 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 people. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any figure, suspect as it might be because it cannot be complete, of the number of those undertaking such work. There must be millions of people who are members of organisations who serve the public and their communities.
	I think also of schools. When I used to go round my constituency, I enjoyed speaking to the teachers and the headmasters at school functions run by volunteers. That is service to the community and I think it is great. Last night I attended on the Terrace a reception given by the Open University. I am a graduate of the Open University and am proud of it. More than 2 million people have been associated with the work of the university over the years.
	There are varying degrees of contact. My wife and I are members of the University of the Third Age, which was created in the past 20 years. It was inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington. Retired people can meet and voluntarily provide services and interests for the members.
	I say to the Minister that when she goes back to her colleagues she should not be put off by people who want to reduce the amount of money that is spent in support of a range of services. Voluntary service and service to the community require underpinning. People do not require medals and lots of money, but they want to know that they are loved. They want to know that the service they are giving is appreciated.
	Civil servants who work locally and nationally do not enter the service to become millionaires. A phrases I learnt from my Co-op life was that the Co-op never made a millionaire and it never made a pauper. No one joins the public service in order to become a millionaire but people get satisfaction out of the job. Their reward is to know not only that they have done a good job and an honest day's work but that they are appreciated by the community.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford deserves our thanks for initiating this debate. I hope that the Minister can tell the House that service of any kind to the community is well worth while.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on winning the ballot and enabling us to have such a fascinating debate on the subject. We have heard impressive contributions, not least from the four maiden speakers. Each spoke from a different viewpoint and background and they made most valuable contributions.
	To many people in their daily lives and work, the concept of service as a sufficient motivation in itself has been seriously devalued for well over 20 years. The incentive of the profit motive has been elevated to the status of a panacea for solving most of our economic problems and problems with our public services. Without doubt, self-seeking advancement is an important element in the motivation of society. But the motive of service is of equal importance. Depending on one's temperament, beliefs and up-bringing, it can bring to many if not most people in our country a great sense of fulfilment, satisfaction, happiness, achievement and security which would elude so many of them if they were confined to a competitive jungle. Everyone is different.
	I speak as a Liberal who has always believed in free trade and private enterprise as being essential for the economic prosperity and well-being of our country and the world, provided that there are adequate safeguards against monopolies and economic imperialism, a qualification which some of our American friends have not yet fully appreciated. I do not believe for one moment that privatisation or the private initiative is the answer to all our problems either in the economy or in the social services. Yet new Labour appears to have adopted it as a replacement panacea for the old Labour one of nationalisation.
	I have been in one or other of the two Houses for almost 40 years and I remember being virtually howled down by Labour supporters in another place when on behalf of the then tiny Liberal Party I objected to the renationalisation of steel. Equally, I was against privatisation of the railways. Steel has always seemed to be a competitive business. It needs to be efficient and productive and that is more likely to be achieved in the hands of private enterprise. But our railways are a public service.
	Looking back over the past 20 years, in common with the vast majority of people in this country I would 20 times prefer the nationally owned and operated railway systems in France or Denmark, with the staff proudly wearing the uniforms of those public services to the privatised mess that we have succeeded in achieving in this country. We have mixed up two issues: first, the necessity for a public service; and, secondly, the profit motive.
	I have always thrived on competition--indeed, I entered an extremely competitive profession--but I have seen the great benefit to many of having a secure background and a certainty which people such as me would not want. Often we receive the best service from people who have a sense of public duty not only in their spare time and voluntary work but in their jobs.
	I believe that good management is not the prerogative of private enterprise. In my day, I have been the chairman of two large public companies and I have seen private enterprise fail as well as achieve great results. However, there is no reason whatever why one cannot have properly managed businesses which are publicly owned. Privately financed enterprises have from time to time suffered--for example, during a depression--when they have taken great risks which otherwise would not have been justified. One can see them come to a sorry end. If that happened to a public enterprise, there would be a great public outcry.
	As regards our railways, for example, is it not true that they have lacked proper investment? If they had remained in the public service, that could have been provided. Of course it would have cost money which, in the case of a public enterprise, could have come only from taxation. I speak for a party which believes that it is essential to have a profitable private sector; that is the basis of our prosperity. However, that prosperity is helped only by having certain public services. I am sure that more than half the population would prefer a sense of public service and public duty to activate them rather than merely profit motive.
	I want to comment on the various public services which have been mentioned. First, the National Health Service. I would have thought that the first duty of this Government, like any other, would be to ensure that the NHS is a properly run national public service. To a considerable extent, the NHS has subsidised the private sector health service. I am doubtful when I hear consultants say to patients, "We have an enormous waiting list and you cannot be operated on for another 18 months. However, if you want a private appointment in a hospital nearby and to go privately it can be arranged in a very short time".
	One wonders about the cross-fertilisation between private and public sectors. However, I say to the Government that their duty is to provide in the NHS and in state education a proper public service. They must safeguard against building a huge superstructure of bureaucracy above the public services. It can be so frustrating; there is no proper substitute for highly responsible individuals at all levels exercising discretion and their own initiative. We want to get away from the concept that initiative and a sense of economy can come only from private enterprise. In many spheres, it is the best answer but in many others it is not.
	In view of what has happened recently and the threat of a depression, the right reverend Prelate performed a great public service at a timely occasion in our lives. He stressed the importance of public service in this country.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I owe a personal debt of gratitude to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for opening this debate. I cannot recall a debate in your Lordships' House for which I have more enjoyed preparation or one to which I have looked forward with greater anticipation.
	As many noble Lords have said, this is an important and timely debate. Its timeliness is reflected in the comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who both said that since 11th September people have turned to the public services in a way that they had not perhaps done previously. They have seen first hand the importance of the public role in defence, security, policing and intelligence and, of course, the role of doctors and nurses.
	This choice of debate is particularly important. We have been reminded of it in your Lordships' House, in which, today, by good luck, four wonderful maiden speeches have been delivered. They were by the noble Lord, Lord Moser, on teaching, by my noble friend Lord MacGregor on politics, by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, on health, and by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on policing. They all reflected a point that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford made in his introductory remarks, and with which I should like to deal. The right reverend Prelate referred to--I believe I use his words--the disparagement, denigration and criticism of, the lack of respect for and the lack of recognition among those who work in the public services. The noble Lords who made maiden speeches today all touched on their sense of that--how very right they were to do so.
	We all remember the events of 11th September. They are burned in our memory, and we are all touched by different memories. Many of us are perhaps most moved by the picture of the fireman trudging his way up the staircase of the World Trade Centre, carrying his pipes and tubes on his back, and going up to danger and possible death while others were walking down to safety.
	As a result, while preparing for this debate, I sought out the fireman's prayer, with which noble Lords may not be familiar. I shall read an extract from it because it touches on all that has been said in this debate. Part of it states:
	"When I am called to duty, God,
	I want to fill my calling and give the best in me And if according to your will I have to give my life Please bless with your protecting hand My children and my wife". As has already been said this evening, it is a high and honourable calling.
	Many noble Lords have said that we all want to believe that that public service ethos will not die and will last for ever. But will it? Christian theology has wrestled with the question of work and its meaning throughout the ages. In his commentary on Genesis, Augustine argued that work was related to the human spirit. The Garden of Eden was both a place of delight and of work--Adam was created as a working gardener. However, after the Fall, private gain is put before the common good. Selfishness, not arduousness, is the sign that we live in a fallen world.
	But then a great change occurred. Baptised in the icy waters of Calvinist theology, the business of work--once regarded as being perilous to the soul--acquired a new sanctity. Labour became not merely an economic means but a spiritual end. In his iconic 1904 work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Max Weber explained this new morality, and I shall try to describe it.
	It has many elements. First, people have an obligation to fill their lives with toil. Hard work and effort are to be valued for their own sake. Secondly, men and women are expected to spend long hours at work, with little time for personal recreation. Thirdly, a worker should have a dependable attendance record, with low absenteeism. Other elements of that morality are that workers should be highly productive; that workers should take pride in their work and do their jobs well; that employees should have feelings of commitment and loyalty to their organisation; and that workers should be achievement-oriented and strive for promotion. Further elements are that frugality and thrift are desirable and that wealth should be acquired through honest labour; and that a universal taboo is placed on idleness, and that industriousness is considered an ideal--waste is a vice and frugality is a virtue. Finally, the view turns on a belief that events in one's life are the result of one's own behaviour--the converse, of course, is the belief that events in one's life will be a function of chance, luck or powers that are beyond one's control. In all of those ways Weber showed how a task that is done out of necessity is transformed into an expression of divine action.
	But how do these ideas relate to today's debate and to the modern world of mixed private and public services? Today, public services exist--I quote the standard textbook definition--where,
	"the state is not seeking to engage in gainful activity but is fulfilling its duties to its own population in the social, cultural and educational fields".
	The idea is straightforward: the state is not in business. The crucial clause in that definition is the phrase, "fulfilling its duties". If the duty is seen as the adequate provision of the service (which may be education, healthcare, retirement provision and so on), and if the services are not being provided, the state is not fulfilling its duty. That seems to be what is happening.
	A MORI poll reveals public disquiet at the future of public service. It found that 37 per cent of people think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private schools; that 56 per cent think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private healthcare; that 59 per cent think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private welfare insurance; and that 66 per cent think that most or nearly everyone will pay for private pensions.
	In a Consumers' Association survey, 40 per cent of the public said that in the face of NHS delays they were willing to pay for private treatment, even if they had no health insurance and had to pay for treatment out of their own pocket. Last week the NHS sent its first ever patient abroad for treatment.
	Why is all that happening and why has it led to the discomfort that many noble Lords have expressed this evening? Last week a Downing Street official explained very crisply:
	"We're running a Soviet-style centralised system and that's never going to work".
	He is right. The state sometimes behaves in the manner that is contained in Marx's description of monopoly capitalists, who depress wages down to the lowest level. That, Marx said, was the way in which labour became mere material to be exploited and a commodity treated,
	"as if it were a thing, a non-human entity, like wool or leather or a piece of machinery".
	Instead of our public servants being rewarded and respected--as they should be--in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, and others, one finds the exact opposite; they are disparaged and denigrated, as the right reverend Prelate said. Neither the people who work in public services, as people, nor the service that they provide have the resources to provide the public good that we all want.
	Here we come to the heart of the matter; the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, came to it, as he usually does. Let us consider the nurses. Christine Hancock, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said:
	"One of the biggest things ... that drives clinical staff out of the NHS is the feeling that they are not able to care for their patients properly and they are not able to do their job properly".
	So it is with doctors. It was found that 80 per cent of doctors would leave the NHS if they could, that 80 per cent would not recommend general practice as a career, that 69 per cent were prepared to take industrial action and that 68 per cent would like to retire early. That is a tremendous fall in the public service ethos.
	Why has all of that happened? Adonis chronicles the change in the public service ethos at Oxford University during the past 25 years--this will be agony for the noble Lord, Lord Moser, who knows the situation well. He described Oxford University as,
	"probably the single most important institution for shaping elite mentalities in modern Britain".
	He shows how in the last 25 years there has been a wholesale switch from public sector careers, especially teaching, towards a narrow range of financial careers. Between 1971 and 1994 the number of Oxford graduates entering state school teaching collapsed by 60 per cent. and, as a proportion of all graduate careers, fell from 9.7 to 3.3 per cent. Meanwhile the number going into City occupations from Oxford increased nearly four times. Why is this? Adonis points to money, social esteem and responsibility as the reason for this collapse.
	And so it is. Kenneth Galbraith sums it up very well:
	"Nothing sets a stronger limit on the liberty of the citizen than a total absence of money."
	This leaves the Christian theology of money and the public service ethic with a very considerable task in the years ahead, which is why I hope that this debate may be a turning point and why I hope that all of us will rise to the challenge that the right reverend Prelate has set before us.

Baroness Morgan of Huyton: My Lords, perhaps I may say first of all that I found the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford on the concept of public service most thought-provoking. I shall try to cover the issues that he raised. We have had an excellent debate, as has been recognised around the House, and once again I am struck by the depth of knowledge we are fortunate to be able to draw on in this House. Many noble Lords have contributed personal experience of their own involvement in public service. Given the constraints on time, I shall endeavour to reply to as many noble Lords as time permits, and beyond that I shall write. I would also commend the paper of my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield on the public service ethic, to which other noble Lords have already referred. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Moser, Lord Chan, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market and Lord Condon, on their respective maiden speeches and welcome the immense experience they bring to the House.
	There are two interconnected strands to this debate: the underlying ethos of public service; and, if we believe in that ethos and its particular though not unique application to public services, why those services must change, evolve and improve. There is no easy or glib definition of a public service ethos. Clearly, it is based on a shared sense of common purpose and a belief that we can together make a difference for the greater good. That indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market, and my noble friend Lord Barnet recognised, is why many enter public life in the first place. Our definition must recognise that we are not just individuals fighting for ourselves and our families, but part of society, part of communities, held together by common beliefs, values, aspirations and mutual responsibility. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that the Government are committed to reviving the ethos of public service and restating the importance of those values, which at times in the past have been easily disregarded.
	The ethos of public service goes beyond the public services. The wide-ranging voluntary sector, with which many Members of this House are closely involved, exemplifies this quality. For example, the Giving Campaign aims to create a new culture of giving in Britain, not just of money but of time too. Volunteering in this country has a long and proud tradition on which we want to build. At this difficult time I am particularly struck by the idealism and commitment of many young and older people taking part in Voluntary Service Overseas, who are an example to us all. As my noble friend Lord Haskel pointed out, an increasing number of businesses are recognising their social responsibility role too.
	Our public servants symbolise that ethos. If one speaks to many good teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers, it is clear that they take professional pride in seeing the child learning to read, the patient returning to good health and the victim of crime knowing that the criminal who attacked them is behind bars. And the awful events of 11th September and the weeks since have, of course, highlighted the selfless dedication of public servants.
	I understand the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when he speaks of the need to recognise public servants fully. I think we all recognise the three Rs of the noble Lord, Lord Condon--recognition, respect and reward. The noble Earl, Lord Rosslyn, also spoke eloquently about the ethos of service in policing.
	Our public services symbolise our vision of community. Public services available to all have a place in our lives today just as they did more than 50 years ago, when the NHS was created and the Education Act was passed. Collective provision continues to be the best way of ensuring that the majority get the opportunity and security that those at the top take for granted. We believe that everyone--every man, every woman, every child--deserves the chance to make the most of themselves within a strong and cohesive society.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Moser, recognised, without high quality education for all, children will never achieve their potential, and the prosperity of the nation, which is dependent on skill, will suffer. Without good healthcare that is accessible and free at the point of use, people are forced to pay or to live in pain. Without a properly-functioning criminal justice system, the society we live in is less stable, less secure and less fair. Without decent public transport, there is no alternative to ever greater congestion on the roads and ever greater environmental damage. As the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, emphasised, we are all committed to the integrity of the Civil Service.
	But if we believe in public service, we must also seek to provide the best public services for our people. That is why our public services cannot stand still. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that this does not mean that the ethos of those services has to change. None of us should underestimate the enormity of the task ahead.
	The Government are committed to reform because the demands on the systems and people's expectations have risen. More people live longer; more diseases are treatable; more children go to nursery; more young people go on to university; and more people use public transport. The consumers of our public services expect quality, high standards, choice and speed in all areas of the country. And of course the public services need to recognise and meet the changing roles and demands of men and women today.
	We are committed to reform because there has been chronic under-investment over decades in all our public services. That has led to the run down of the country's essential infrastructure. That is why we are embarked on the largest ever investment in our public services. Your Lordships will know the macro figures, but these mean, for example, 600 new or completely refurbished schools over the next three years, the largest ever hospital building programme, 44,000 extra classroom assistants, the recruitment of 1,300 police officers in the past year alone and £239 million over the next three years for improved rural transport.
	We are committed to reform and improvement for our public servants as well, because their recruitment and retention is the key to sustainable long-term improvements in services. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, talked from experience about the NHS. We are making a start by improvements in that area for our staff. We have massively improved recruitment and salary packages for nurses and we are giving every newly-qualified doctor going into GP practice an extra payment. We are striving constantly to increase recruitment and to keep up retention rates across the NHS. That is also why the NHS is striving to keep its skilled, largely female, staff by offering more childcare, flexible working and other practical improvements to working life.
	We are developing our public services via four pillars of reform. I hope that demonstrates to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, that we are not satisfied with the status quo and are not standing still. The first is the setting of a framework of national standards, inspection and accountability across the country. In practice this means rebuilding and developing services so that they meet the diverse needs of individuals, offering greater choice but with universal high standards. So we have national tests for literacy and numeracy and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to set standards for health treatment across the NHS.
	The second principle is the devolution of freedom to frontline professionals and local leaders to innovate and develop services. Staff should be freed up to work in new ways to meet the needs of their customers. In health, with the establishment of local primary care trusts, 75 per cent of all NHS resources will be spent by frontline workers. That is a massive increase in the devolution of responsibility to where it should be. It is a large challenge to staff but it is one which, from my experience of meeting staff in recent weeks in Ipswich, York and Swindon, they relish. Similarly, 85 per cent of all local education funding now goes directly to schools.
	The next pillar of reform is more recognition of the work of frontline staff. Without the support and professionalism of public servants, the Government's plans for reform will not be delivered, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield and my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen so rightly said. So we are improving conditions, increasing pay and introducing rewards for high performance. Indeed this year, for the first time in many years, it is significant that public sector salaries are growing at a faster rate than private sector salaries.
	The final approach is more choice for service users, whether that be a greater variety of schools and the expansion of successful ones, or the expansion of successful and efficient GP practices. That means the promotion of alternative providers where minimum standards are not reached. It also means partnership with other sectors to improve a service. It means freeing up our public servants to innovate and to take responsibility for making change happen. The private and voluntary sectors can both play a role. This does not mean replacing or changing the ethos of public services, as my noble friend Lord Judd made clear. But where the use of other providers can improve public services, we should be open to that.
	For instance, there is a place for public private partnerships and for private finance initiatives where they deliver quality. In Glasgow, for example, 29 secondary schools are nearing completion after a large amount of investment. They are providing state-of-the-art computer networks, scientific laboratories, well-maintained and attractive premises in which to work and in which the pupils can prosper.
	Of course, we must safeguard the position of public servants in those initiatives and we have taken sound steps to do that so that the workforce can feel secure. We will reduce fears over job security and remove uncertainty, for example, over pensions.
	The private sector is not the only source of skills and expertise and it is not a panacea. As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton and other noble Lords know well, there are over 400,000 voluntary organisations and millions of volunteers in every part of Britain. These organisations make a significant contribution to the health and dynamism of the economy and society, empowering local communities, strengthening citizenship and helping to build neighbourhoods and communities.
	The voluntary sector is often well placed to work in partnership with the Government in delivering public services, because it already works so effectively with many parts of our communities nation-wide. Indeed, Government have much to learn from the flexible and innovative approach of many in the voluntary sector and their capacity to meet the needs of local people sensitively and responsively. Programmes such as Sure Start, Neighbourhood Renewal and the New Deal for Young People, involve working in close partnership with the public, private and voluntary sectors, particularly in areas of social deprivation--a point well made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. The Government want to encourage the voluntary sector to flourish. I am pleased to be sponsor Minister for a review of the legal and regulatory framework to further the contribution of this strong, independent and diverse sector. We want to see increased growth in this sector in the future.
	As has been clear from the debate, at the moment we are particularly aware of our interdependence and our mutual responsibility as citizens. It is an appropriate time, therefore, for us to underline the importance of public service in maintaining and indeed strengthening society, both within Britain and internationally, and to pay tribute to those involved in their day-to-day lives with public service. I believe that our debate today has played a valuable part in furthering that discussion, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I began by quoting a headmaster who said that the whole concept of service has gone. From the many valuable contributions to the debate it is clear that that is far from the case, particularly in the voluntary sector. Great worries have been expressed about the public sphere. I was pleased to hear the reassurance from the Minister that in all the necessary changes and reforms that will take place, the Government will try to conserve that precious gift. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Education of Children in Care

Baroness Andrews: rose to call attention to the educational needs of children and young people in public care; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, we have just had a stimulating and wide-ranging debate on the nature of public service. I believe that that debate has close links to this second debate which it is my great privilege to introduce. Services to children can be no more than the highest expression of what it means to aim for the highest standards in public service.
	I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who share my convictions that this is an important topic, particularly to those who have already taken part in, so to speak, the matinee performance and for whom this will be a second appearance. I am grateful to them for giving their time.
	In the time available I want to set out what I believe are the key areas of need that we face in relation to the care of the educational needs of children in public care. Over the past two years we have seen a definite and welcome improvement. The biggest change has been that we now see the education of young children in public care as the heart of their care, the key to their future, and not something that is relegated to the margins.
	It has taken an incredibly long time for this fundamental point to find its way into public policy. I was shocked to discover that four years ago hardly any local authority in this country knew where its children in public care actually were or how many there were. Two years ago, half of all local authorities did not know how those children were achieving at school.
	Eighteen months ago, the joint guidance on the education of children in public care, which has followed the Quality Protects initiative, identified 15 different reasons why children were failing to thrive in schools, and not one of those reasons included the lifetime effects of separation from parents and siblings, the trauma of abuse and violence, or even exile from country, let alone culture. They mentioned the lack of information, the low value put on education by those who have day-to-day care and much else.
	Much has been achieved, not least due to the public servants who are entrusted with the care and education of those children and the voluntary agencies that carry out magnificent work in championing their rights. My questions to the Minister--I am delighted to see him at the Dispatch Box as I feel we share a common bond this evening--are whether Quality Protects, the framework that has enabled so much improvement, is working properly, whether the definition of what it means to be a "corporate parent" is sufficient and whether that is and will be enough for the future.
	I believe that it is fair to ask such questions because the Social Exclusion Unit, for example, which has made a habit of asking awkward questions, is now probing deep beyond the structures that enshroud children in public care, to ask about the subtle and complex reasons why they are failing to thrive, even when they regularly attend school and even when they are known to be able.
	The debate is also timely because we have a fresh set of statistics that show just how steep the incline is. In March 2001, 59,000 young people were in public care, and one in five of those children was under the age of four. The statistics published last week show that in March 2001, 37 per cent had one or more GCSEs compared with 30 per cent the previous year. But 63 per cent do not have a single GCSE. The national target for those children is that half of them should achieve that minimum standard. Ninety-four per cent of other children achieve one or more GCSEs.
	Likewise, in March 2001, five out of every 100 children in public care attained five top GCSEs, compared with four in the previous year. The national target for these children is merely 15 in every 100, but the national average is 50 children in every 100. Later I shall return to the issue of raising expectation in relation to targets because it goes to the heart of what I would like to see.
	More troubling still is that children tend to do worse as they grow older and the longer they are in care. On average at key stages 1 and 2 they do half as well as others; at key stage 3 they do a third as well, and by the time they approach higher education, only one in 100 goes to university, compared with one in three children not in care.
	The other day one of these young people explained that to me in the following words:
	"There is very little support or love in the system. It doesn't promote the idea of a future . . . A single GCSE is considered a great achievement. If you go to college there is little financial support . . . and there is no parent to fall back on".
	Some of the reasons for that failure are all too obvious. When there is no parent to fall back on, there is no one to encourage or to nag about homework and project work and key stage tests and exams are only one of a thousand worries about the future.
	Also deeply troubling is that even when such young people have the love and support of a stable foster family, according to Ofsted they still do not achieve as well as they should--they still only "tick along"--and they do not achieve the expected level for their age.
	There is another group of children whose lives are full of endings and constant changes of placements and who may end up miles away from their extended families and friends. They are likely to form an even more graphic set of statistics, namely that children who have been in care make up 26 per cent of the prison population and almost one third of all rough sleepers on the streets. That is why all those involved in helping these young people to live more successful lives are so concerned about the need to provide the right care in the right place near extended families, siblings and schools, not miles away where, as one said to me the other day, "I stand out because I am black".
	For these children education itself protects. School is perhaps the only safe place that they have ever known; and it is probably the only place where they can rediscover--if they ever have known it--what it feels like to play, to have a book read to them, to be the same as other children and, crucially, where other adults believe that they can do well.
	Yesterday I met a young lady who was one of the 5 per cent who had achieved five top GCSEs. She was one of the lucky ones. She had found someone in her school who was, significantly, a learning support assistant who "was always there for her", believed in her and encouraged her in the highest expectations. She is now training to be a child care worker herself. She told me she believed that no one thought she could do it but she had showed them.
	Recently, the chief inspector of social services has reported major improvements. There are designated teachers looking after children in public care in schools in many areas. Personal educational plans are in place or in development which establish individual learning needs and goals. Information is finally being gathered on children's achievements. Quality Protects is beginning to work but needs to go much further before all local authorities become the kind of corporate parent that we would recognise as a good parent.
	One cannot gloss over the well-known problems of capacity, whether it be finding the right and consistent care setting for many children or the social workers who are needed. There are substantial gaps in social work provision up and down the country. As a result, in many areas local authorities do not meet the major challenge of making sure that no child is out of school for more than 20 days. Losing out on school means constantly losing out not only on the curriculum but everything else: social life, the support that the school offers the child, motivation and friendship.
	There is no quick fix. It is in that context that I should like to ask the Minister, first, for an assurance that Quality Protects is here to stay and is not a national project but a national policy which will survive beyond the lifetime of its technical funding. Secondly, there is an outstanding need to implement the guidance as fully and quickly as possible and bring all local authorities up to the level of the best. Why, for example, are only 30 out of 150 local authorities meeting the existing national targets for basic GCSEs?
	I pay tribute to the excellent work that is being done by the joint implementation team, but I ask what else we can do proactively at national level quickly to spread the knowledge of what works among authorities, because one thing these young people cannot do is wait. We need to know what works best and why, whether it be about information systems, the recruitment of social workers, training care workers or listening to children.
	To answer my second point, I believe that Quality Protects should and could go further, to the point where we are convinced that the corporate parent, albeit an ugly term, is a good one. Quite simply, a good parent wants all the people involved with these children to work closely together and talk continually to one another. Too often the life chances of these young people are hampered by bureaucratic barriers, hierarchies and egos as much as by family breakdowns. Where these have been replaced by joint services and joint working we see a dramatic improvement in quality. I should like to see that as the first step in providing a coherent service for children which does not treat them as a bundle of problems but as full participating citizens.
	The personal education plans need to be embedded in care as well as education which means regular contact between teachers and social workers. It is no good social workers ringing up the day after GCSE results are published to ask, "How did you get on?" if they have not provided the support that the child needs at the right stage. If the joint guidance is being implemented at this stage, why are we not looking at the possibility of the joint training of social workers and teachers and joint monitoring by Ofsted and the SSI?
	A good parent would also want his or her child to go to the best school available, not the only school. I also should like to see those decisions made by joint panels of education and social services, together with the child and foster parent or care home. A good parent would also want to know whether the right expectations had been set for the child and all its achievements were recognised and encouraged. Many children in care believe that they are set up to fail. In that context it may be that the time is right to revisit the national targets for achievement. They may be as yet unattained by the majority of local authorities, but they are seen as depressing aspirations and disgracefully low. They require to be thought about again.
	One of the constant complaints of young people in care is that they are treated as stereotypes. While they want to have their personal histories acknowledged and understood, they do not want to be treated differently. Failing to acknowledge what they can achieve is to entrench low expectations. I believe that there is a more constructive way out of this tension; namely, to look at the possibility of adding real value to what they do in terms of measuring achievement. That might be recognition that the child had read aloud for the first time, received an attendance or good behaviour award or taken part in a school play. All of those matters can be huge steps for a child. Why is it that we do not recognise those in the targets? Those targets are not only for the child and school to see how the child is improving but also for the local authority to see what is being achieved and drive standards and provision.
	Finally, a good parent would make sure that the child had what was needed in school when it was needed. It is not simply a question of including the child in the life of the school; it is providing what the child needs when it needs it. For example, for most children the change from primary school to secondary school is an enormously traumatic experience. They also need extra help for homework between key stages 3 and 4--no matter how well they are doing they tend to lose momentum--and also in the run-up to GCSE. One must also ensure that every children's home has a superb library with plenty of space for books, including a homework mentor and lots of ICT so that children can for themselves open up the virtual world of learning. The Who Cares Trust has a magnificent new site for this purpose, and I very much hope that it will be able to encourage foster parents and children to use it.
	Often foster parents are isolated and extremely stressed by the task that they have taken on. They are reluctant to go into the school and do not know what kind of welcome they will receive. A much more proactive and conscientious programme must be worked out with the school in terms of family learning and family activities in an informal way. Above all, a good parent is there to listen and ensure that the child participates.
	At one level I support the commendable suggestion that we have a publicly funded advocacy service for children. I believe that that could lead naturally to a children's commissioner, but the important point is to provide somebody who is there when the child has a complaint which it cannot take to anyone else. At the moment, whether it ever finds the right person is very much hit or miss.
	The designated teacher does not have enough time. The story of the young girl with the learning support assistant to listen to her is not a counsel of perfection but something which all good parents want for their children; it is a minimal standard. As one local authority leader put it to me the other day, frankly if we do not provide for these children something that is better than they have left behind we will have failed utterly. I am confident that we have the framework to make sure that that does not happen. I am grateful for your Lordships' support. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for initiating this debate. As the noble Baroness has so ably outlined, the situation for these vulnerable young people is serious and, if we as a society do not take appropriate action to enable them to benefit fully from their education, we are failing them miserably. What is more, we are depriving the country of their potential contribution and setting ourselves up with problems for the future.
	There is clear evidence in Ofsted's last annual report that children in long-term foster placements function in school at a level which is reasonable given their abilities, whereas those in children's homes are more often the ones who are excluded from school, truant or run away.
	The Department of Health's Children Act report of July this year showed that 42 per cent of children whose longest placement was with a foster family left care with one or more GCSE or GNVQ qualifications, compared with only 17 per cent of children whose longest placement was in a children's home. There is also some evidence that it is better for children's educational attainment, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, if they are fostered locally in their home area.
	The evidence that foster care is better for the education of children in public care is backed up by a report carried out for Barnardo's by Sonia Jackson. Her researches show the importance of the quality of foster care in achieving good results. She found that in schemes where the carers actually focus on educational attainment, instead of just being preoccupied with overcoming disadvantage and working on building relationships, startlingly better results can be achieved. She quotes an American programme where the foster parents made efforts to encourage the children to read more and watch TV less, and their educational attainments were raised a good deal. Clearly, fostering is not just social work but should be a more varied, skilled job with clear objectives.
	The National Teaching and Advisory Service, an independent not-for-profit organisation, has demonstrated what can be achieved by having teachers visit foster parents and schools, helping to promote effective home/school communications. The first results from independent fostering agencies working with NTAS were encouraging. All of the children in the study attained key stage 1 level 2 English and there was a dramatic improvement in their mathematics and science. All those eligible to take national exams did so and 25 per cent gained eight or more GCSE passes. These results are remarkable given that a quarter of these young people had been out of full-time education for two years or more before being placed with the agencies and supported by NTAS.
	That brings me to a point about qualifications for foster carers. There is plenty of evidence that a lot of benefits can accrue from well trained foster carers, but these hard-working people cannot be expected to commit to courses of study if there is no benefit to them as well as to the children. Although some local authorities, such as Westminster, pay extra to carers with relevant qualifications, not all of them do. I should certainly like to encourage more local authorities to consider the advantages of doing this.
	Evidence from the young people themselves dramatically supports the theory that good foster parents matter enormously to their education. One young care-leaver said:
	"I couldn't have done anything without my foster dad. You need someone close to you to go to if you have any problems. I think if I'd been put somewhere else I'd have failed all my GCSEs. I need pushing and he pushed me".
	Another said:
	"Probably my foster mum is my main source of support. She's the only one who's gone past GCSE stage. She went to university and she's been helping me".
	Another said:
	"It's great to have someone to help you with your homework and take an interest".
	I particularly like this one:
	"If you can fit education into your survival pack it can beam you up to somewhere very different".
	The abilities of children in foster care are often underestimated by society. Many of them have enormous potential as this moving letter written in August this year to the Fostering Network (formerly called the National Foster Care Association) shows. I think that this young woman wrote very movingly. She said:
	"I wanted to inform you that I have now finished my degree course at Brunel University. I graduated on 18th July receiving a 2.1 in Psychology. I could not have done this without the support of my foster parents, Brent Social Services and the National Foster Care Association. I want to thank you for everything that you have done for me all these years. The help and support that you have provided extends to more than financial assistance. It is the encouragement that you provide and the faith you have in children who have been pigeon-holed by society as being criminals, single teen mothers, unemployed and a burden on the taxpayer. Schemes such as the 'My Place' scheme are beginning to break this myth and show people that despite their troubled upbringing foster children have the potential to succeed. Hopefully my success story has shown that everybody's hard work was worth it in the end".
	As someone said to me recently, "Loving them is not enough".
	We need high standards, training and a proper career and remuneration structure for foster carers if we are to attract good people into the job and keep them there. The Fostering Network has produced a set of standards--it calls it the "Gold Standard"--to underpin the provision of high quality foster care for children and young people. Although the Department of Health has produced a set of minimum standards, these are minimum standards. The best local authorities are going much further. I am pleased to say that my own county of Cheshire was given beacon status for fostering last year and Kensington & Chelsea also has many excellent innovative schemes. We need more opportunities to disseminate best practice and more incentives for local authorities to implement them.
	I noticed as I came into your Lordships' House from my home in Battersea that the Borough of Lambeth is currently advertising on bus stops to recruit more foster carers. I wish it well in its efforts but I feel that certain nettles need to be grasped nationally before large numbers of good people will be attracted into this worthwhile job.
	Currently, many of them are paid such low expenses that it actually costs them money to do it. The remuneration varies enormously from place to place, ranging from as little as £70 to as much as £500 per week. There is enormous inconsistency. Private agencies pay carers more, but then they charge local authorities more in turn. Only about 10 authorities make any extra payment for qualifications. Carers do not get any holiday pay and do not have a right to a week's break between placements. If they take such a break, they risk not being given a placement afterwards and they lose money.
	Because much of the payment is expenses and not reward, they are not taxed, but also they do not get a pension. I know that the Inland Revenue is looking into this at the moment because some foster carers are paid just expenses and others get taxable remuneration. The whole thing is an awful muddle. I believe that foster parents should be paid proper wages, pay taxes and have pensions like everyone else. This, as well as the thanks I extend to them tonight for the wonderful work that they do, would send out the signal that they are appreciated and valued by society.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for introducing this debate. I particularly warmed, if I may say so, to the passionate detail with which the noble Baroness took us through her opening speech.
	I do not intervene on this subject in your Lordships' House with any specialist knowledge, but simply to underline the responsibility that we all have as a society to ensure that these young people in public care get a better deal.
	Many of your Lordships will have had the experience, which I have had, when meeting such young people, of remembering suddenly one's own good fortune. To have actually known the security of a home in which your parents love and care for you is the best possible start in life. But at the heart of this debate is the knowledge that that ideal is not available for far too many children. There may be problems of domestic violence, of physical, emotional or sexual abuse, alcohol or drug misuse, or one of the parents may just have walked away from their responsibilities.
	Recently I visited one of our youth prisons. While I was there it came to light that the prison officer in charge of prison visitors and relatives visiting the prison inmates, when closing up found a child of four holding a little baby of about 10 months in his arms. No one was in the room. He was totally abandoned. For those and other kinds of reasons children often need to be removed from such environments.
	The last figures I saw revealed that 58,900 children are being "looked after" in England. Of course the ways in which those children are cared for vary greatly, but in paying tribute to the dedication and commitment of foster carers and residential social workers--I am so grateful to the last speaker for her words about fostering--I know that they would be the first to say that they struggle to do their best, often in very difficult circumstances. In other words, the care they give cannot replace the things which so many parents can give to their children. I am haunted by those two young children in that visitors' room.
	I welcome the Government's determination to address the challenge presented by the multiple needs of this group of young people. I am sure that the Minister will listen carefully to the responses to, for example, the consultation exercise being carried out by the Social Exclusion Unit. However, it is clear that we need more than words and the setting of objectives. We all welcome the objective of maximising the life chance benefits which flow from improved educational attainment. Let us be under no illusion about the multiple and interlocking causes of the staggering figures of under-achievement of which, in an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Moser, reminded us. We need to remember that the emphasis--good in itself--placed on league tables, on competition and success, runs the risk of causing us to forget the special needs of children who have never known stability or the support of understanding parents who are there for their children in the bad times as well as the good. Many of these children cannot compete. Let us be realistic about that. Some of them do well to survive at all.
	Again, I offer a general reflection from my own experience. Along with many Members of your Lordships' House, I have had the experience of attending parents' evenings at our own children's school--experiences which have been positive and less positive. I used to go with my heart in my mouth about what was going to be said about my middle son--I do not mind that comment appearing in Hansard. We have been able to think about how best to encourage people like him and, sometimes, even how to apply sanctions. But who is there to do that in the case of looked after children? We need to ensure that what happens at present in only the best cases becomes the norm. That will require not only resources, but also imagination.
	We need to think ahead and see if we cannot find ways of increasing the amount of stability in the lives of such children and young people, which they so sorely need over a longer term. Schools and social services departments will need to work closely together--as the best do already--to ensure that that happens. But central government also has a role to play, not only in setting objectives but also, dare I say, by ensuring that resources are available to ensure that looked after children do not miss out because they lack financial support. That is why I intend to contribute to the debate tomorrow on student fees.
	Finally, in debates of this kind there is a danger that we offer only generalised expressions of good will. We all know that we must do more than that. Research so usefully collected by the Social Exclusion Unit and other agencies shows that this problem is intractable because the majority of looked after children have been abused or neglected at an influential age. Sadly I do not always remember in detail the tender early years of my own children. I was too busy. However, now I am blessed with seven grandchildren. I think that it is both the vulnerability and capacity for recovery of the youngest children which moved me to put down my name to speak in this debate.
	Young children, whether or not they are deprived, need intensive support over a sustained period. The professional services which are required are under huge pressure. I wonder whether the Minister can assure the House that, in addition to setting targets and objectives, the Government will ensure that serious shortfalls in the funding of mainstream and specialist services will be improved, so that they can be restored to a more adequate level. If we will the end of improving the lives of our looked after children, then we must will the means.

Baroness Billingham: My Lords, perhaps I may add my thanks to those already given to my noble friend Lady Andrews for initiating this debate. Current legislation focusing on children in public care reflects, quite rightly, public concern. That concern is expressed in the view that such vulnerable young people are entitled to the best possible support from well qualified and highly motivated professionals in the field. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill, introduced in this House in November 1999, was a milestone along the way to achieving those objectives. Today's debate gives the House an opportunity to evaluate the progress made since that time. Sadly, at least for myself, that Bill passed through the House just before I arrived, so this is the first opportunity I have had to make a contribution on this subject. However, I am sure that it will not be the last.
	As ever, I am keenly aware that in this Chamber I am surrounded by what I can describe only as "experts in the field". That is always a chastening experience. Indeed, listening to the other speakers in the debate will certainly prove to be a valuable learning opportunity for me.
	It is right to acknowledge previous legislation made prior to 1999 which has transformed the ways in which our society treats its children. I refer in particular to the Children Act 1989, introduced by the previous government. As a magistrate I can confirm the remarkable effect that it has had on our dealings with young people. We take young people's views into consideration, listen to them and respect their preferences.
	However, it is to a much earlier part of my life that I turn, a period which has compelled me to contribute to the debate tonight. Quite simply, as a very young child, I was taken into care for several years. The circumstances were not especially unusual. My father was killed in the war. My mother fled the bombing in London, taking me, then a toddler, to the safety of a village in Buckinghamshire. She found work as a cook in a large house. Just two years later, she was diagnosed with TB. In those days the illness was almost a death sentence. The only hope of a cure involved many months of rest in a sanatorium. We had no family and few friends; we could hardly have been more vulnerable.
	Yet help for us was in place, from the local social services, from the teachers in my village primary school and from kindly people around us. I was taken into a foster home located in the same village, which was loving and happy. I stayed at the same school, played with the same friends, went to Sunday school and to dancing classes, just as before. Disruption was minimised. To give the story the happy ending that it deserves, a miracle drug called streptomycin was discovered and within months my mother came home cured of TB.
	All that took place more than 50 years ago, but I can still close my eyes and become once again that five year-old child, terrified at the prospect of being left totally alone in the world. Who would take care of me? What lay ahead? I have frequently described myself as having been "lucky" to have been fostered in a good home. However, that acknowledges that others were unlucky. Today, I reject that difference. No child should be "unlucky"--and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are not.
	When I studied the Ofsted report on raising the achievement of children in public care, along with the other reviews of public responsibilities, chords were struck in my mind. The notion of the corporate parent, with all that the role demands, is subject to very critical appraisal--and quite rightly. The failure of many children in terms of their educational achievement is a challenge to us all. There must be no "twin track" approach; every child must be given the best possible chance, irrespective of home circumstances. I find myself comparing my experience of care--in the same community, being able to attend the same school and so forth--with that of the disjointed fostering experience of so many children. They are moved from area to area, school to school, so that they lose the thread of their young lives.
	So I welcome all the measures now in place, which ensure better qualified professionals in social services and in education, enabling young people in care to cope with their emotional and their academic progress. Better vetting of care itself, whether in foster homes or in local authority homes, clearly is essential for the safeguarding of our young people.
	As the Ofsted report acknowledges, much has been achieved but there is still much more to be done. It is good work which affects the lives of hundreds of children in care now and will have a profound effect on hundreds more in the future. I hope that this debate will focus all our minds on the positive progress and reinforce our determination to see an even better performance in the future. Our children deserve no less.
	Finally, I ask the Minister to take back the concerns expressed in your Lordships' House today and to share with us the future plans which will ensure a stronger and better framework for our children in care.

Lord Addington: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her speech and on bringing this subject before your Lordships' House. My speech will be focused on a group of people which has something of a magnifying effect on the negative social consequences which can flow from having been placed in care because you have to be and from not having support--that is, those people with hidden disabilities.
	I choose this group quite simply because, if you happen to be in this group, to get assistance you have to be observed closely before the appropriate steps are taken. It is difficult to deal with the problems of those involved in the group--I am thinking predominantly of those suffering from dyslexia, dyspraxia and Asperger's syndrome--because the disability does not stand out. If you have not been socialised properly, if you are not getting support at home, if you do not know what is going on, if you are unaware of how you should behave, if you have become very unhappy at what may happen to you next time, if you have been moved from fostering that did not work to a home and care, you probably will not have most of the normal skills. You will have developed a defensive behavioural pattern. This will generally show itself in one of two ways: you will be very disruptive and very negative, or you will be very withdrawn. This means that you will be a person who is very difficult to understand and reach.
	The normal way in which the people in the group I am talking about are picked up in our system is that the parents will notice that something is wrong. I have looked at the websites of the people I have mentioned and I have talked to them. They say that what the parent should look for is x number of behavioural changes and other things that are going wrong. If the parent is not there, it does not matter because they will not be noticed.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke about the number of people who end up in prison from care. The number of dyslexics--I certainly know about dyslexics--who are in prison is alarmingly high. I believe that the percentage points are roughly compatible with the number in care. There is absolutely no reason why we should find more dyslexics in care than in any other section of the population. Dyslexia runs through all forms of intellectual ability and social background. It was a middle class disease purely because middle class parents banged on the door loudest and earliest.
	The same is undoubtedly true of every other disability. Every time you speak to someone they always say, "What the parents should do is go back and find out what they should be doing. They should batter the education authority and the school into doing the right thing". Fortunately, in some of these areas you no longer have to knock as hard as you once did. It is fair to say that we have made considerable progress over the years. Indeed, the previous government and the present one have continued to make progress.
	I hope that we now realise the problem. It is calculated that something like 10 per cent of the population have dyslexia and that in about 5 per cent of those cases it is a noticeable drawback. Under these circumstances, I would suggest that the proportion may be higher among those in care because the negative effects will be magnified; they will not be seen and they will not be recognised.
	The same is true of dyspraxia. Indeed, I have enjoyed learning about dyspraxia--I do not know whether "enjoyed" is the right word--because I have a nephew who suffers from the disability. Symptoms of dyspraxia are generally picked up earlier. The procedural and behavioural problems that identify the condition, together with problems in speech development, are seen at an earlier age. But in a dysfunctional family, what chance do these children stand?
	Having waved a warning flag about a hole in the road, what can we do about the situation? We have got to train social workers and teachers to be able to spot the behavioural problems at an early stage. Once we have worked that miracle, I suggest we go on to something else such as draining the salt out of the Red Sea. There is a real problem in recruiting social workers at the moment, but we must start to address this issue. There is a terrible certainty about the fact that a social worker who notices one of these problems will say, "That is down to your bad environment"--it has happened repeatedly in all these fields--"Let us deal with the bad environment first".
	If we train social workers properly, they may be able to cut through to the child concerned and say, "Do not worry. You are not stupid. You are not lazy"--the two standard labels that are attached to people who have problems that are not understood. "We can do something about it. It is merely a matter of changing your learning pattern". Or they can even say, "There are one or two things you simply cannot do".
	If these coping strategies are given to a child, a better relationship will be established. Everything we have heard and, I am sure, will hear today, has referred to the parental support relationship being missing. We have to ensure that a support relationship is at least given in this way because it will open up children to support. We will have a chance to help children in this group of people to become a part of the mainstream, even those who are in care.
	It is a difficult subject. The only answer is greater training, greater resources and a change of culture and approach. If we do not educate the key workers in charge of these people as part of their responsibility, the disabilities will continue to be missed. They are difficult to spot, particularly on the margins. Those with the most severe problems stand the best chance of being picked up.
	I thought of an analogy when I was in the creative environment of the Guests' Bar in your Lordships' House. I was talking to someone about dyslexia generally and I said that it is always the ones with the most severe problems who get the help. I likened it to seeing someone whose car is stopped in the road, where you may stop and at least give him a push to the side or give him a hand. But if you see someone struggling along in second or third gear, you would probably get absolutely furious and end up trying to drive him off the road. That is the kind of situation we have to worry about.
	I do not have many solutions rather than the obvious and slightly facile ones that I keep repeating. I suggest that we have to build them into the situation, otherwise the educational attainment of a section of the group I have referred to will never be dealt with because we will simply be doing the wrong thing.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Baroness Andrews for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue and for drawing to our attention what are a set of damning statistics affecting children in care.
	I wished to speak in the debate because I believe fundamentally that universities must play their part in addressing the poor opportunities which are open to young people in care. It is horrifying that only one in 100 care leavers go on to university compared to one in three school leavers in the population as a whole. That is a damning indictment for all of us, and I include the work of universities in that.
	First, though, I must declare an interest as the chief executive of Universities UK. I should say at the outset that universities are committed to improving access for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and, of course, that includes young people in care. Universities UK will publish a report later this year which is intended to highlight case studies from across the UK of ways in which universities are reaching out into socially deprived areas to encourage participation. I hope that the report will identify some good examples of young people in residential care and in foster care. As there have been no specific initiatives in this area, I am not at all sure that it will, but I hope that it will. The aim of all the case studies is to encourage the participation of young people from disadvantaged groups.
	It is not surprising, given the data on the poor educational attainment that has been identified at GCSE level--documented by my noble friend Lady Andrews--that only a small proportion of looked-after children go to university. In preparing for this debate I looked at the recent Barnardo's report, Better education, better futures. It is a compelling document. Again, it chillingly catalogues the mountain of disadvantage that young people in care have to climb. The report highlights the importance of supporting young people in care throughout their education. It lists the main obstacles that need to be tackled to encourage more people in care to take up studies in further and higher education: the lack of accessible information on post-16 educational provision; the lack of support from social services for those who want to go on to further study; the difficulty in maintaining accommodation during term time and vacations; and, not surprisingly, financial problems. These issues must be addressed if we are to support the particular needs of young people in care and encourage them to take on educational opportunities that they would otherwise simply not contemplate.
	Universities have already taken initiatives which I hope will begin to address some of these problems. The New Opportunities for All Concordat--a group linking schools and the FE and HE sectors--hopes to provide such young people with information about the way in which they might study in HE in an attempt to build up their confidence. The "Fair Enough?" project is looking at admissions criteria and widening access through improved potential to succeed. The Student Debt Project will examine the impact of student debt and term-time working on higher education in the UK.
	There is one area where I do not think we have any good practice; namely, collaboration and links with industry and the various foundations that some companies have. To use an example that I know, Lattice Group--formerly British Gas--which includes Transco, is a major company with links all over the country. I declare an interest as a recently appointed non-executive director. Lattice has developed a partnership with National Children's Homes (NCH) to support an IT development with broadband access for children in residential care homes in London and Coventry. It uses the knowledge management and technological expertise of the company in innovative ways, while offering positively vetted website addresses covering a wide range of subjects across all four key stages. It offers help with studying, raising levels of IT literacy and milestones into HE. What is more, the software is being extended to cover access to NCH project workers, carers, guardians, parents and grandparents. Phase two of the project, which is currently being developed, will mean that software can link in with Learn Direct to offer on-line mentoring and the material for specific vocational training. I hope that we can build on this project with the universities.
	I emphasise that excellent initiative because it is not only of benefit to young people. It is a project on which we should build, together with the commercial sector, because it is also of benefit to companies, linking into their local labour needs. It is also of benefit to the community, because it raises skills levels and educational aspirations in some of the most disadvantaged youngsters.
	Let us remind ourselves of a chilling statistic. Seventy-three per cent of young people from professional backgrounds go on to higher education; 13 per cent of children from unskilled or rural backgrounds go into HE--already a huge difference in the numbers--but only 1 per cent of looked-after children. Even when looked-after young people have the necessary qualifications for HE, it has often been difficult for them to get to university, because local authorities have been keen to discharge them from their care as early as possible--sometimes at 16.
	Therefore, I was delighted to see the introduction of the leaving care Act, which makes local authorities responsible for young people of 16 and 17 years of age, whether they are in care or have been discharged from care. So there should at least be less difficulty in staying on at school and negotiating what can be a problematic transfer to university.
	That said, we know anecdotally that applying for university at the same time as preparing to leave care can be difficult. While most young people have the security of their family homes as back-up at this time, along with all kinds of practical help and support from parents, care leavers have to cope all alone. Delays in sorting out accommodation and student loans are much more worrying when you are coping alone. So it is important for staff in care homes and local authorities to believe in the importance of encouragement and raising aspirations.
	There are some good examples. I know of three care leavers who worked on temporary contracts in the Department of Health. All three went to university, but sadly two of them dropped out. One can conjecture that not having parents supporting them was a major handicap. We know that financial problems are having an increased impact on the rates of those staying on at university.
	I am not an expert, but in doing the background research for this debate I was horrified at what I learnt. I certainly intend to talk to my colleagues in the universities about how we can do more: how we might develop more student mentors to help in this area and more student ambassadors; how to ensure targeted access initiatives which might help in this most deprived area. I shall also make sure that we take advantage of a new study by the Institute of Education. It is a research project to help care leavers to go to university. I am determined that we shall come forward with suggestions for the Social Exclusion Unit, which I believe is due to report in March.
	Finally, if the aspirations of all those who have spoken in this debate on behalf of those in care are to become a reality, adequate financial support for students is vital. That support must be targeted at those from under-represented groups. I know that there are more vocal groups, but it must be so targeted. In addition, more needs to be done at an early stage to alert young people and their carers to the lifelong benefits of higher education. It is important to focus on initiatives to encourage the recruitment of under-represented groups to higher education, but also to focus on measures to retain those students, to ensure their progress and to assist them into the labour market on the completion of their studies. As the director of the Buttle Trust has said,
	"It is essential that the complex task of supporting care leavers in moving on to university should be properly understood".

Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on her masterly portrayal of the overall picture of the education of children in public care. I also apologise for my rushed entry into the Chamber as the noble Baroness rose. I had just been freed from the locked disabled toilet in the nick of time--we nearly had to tear the door down!
	I thank the noble Baroness for her help in preparing for this debate. It is a completely new area to me. I thank also the National Children's Bureau; SKILL, of which I am president; IPSEA, of which I am a member, and Mencap for giving me their thinking and much information on the education of children with special educational needs in public care. I shall home in on this area and ask the Minister one or two questions.
	It is rather too early to know how the May 2000 guidance is working. I kept hearing references to the need for evaluation and monitoring, the importance of consistent and joined-up delivery of services, a clear understanding of roles, especially where there was cross-regional involvement, and the importance of understanding and responding to the needs of the child.
	Section 9 of the guidance deals with children and young people with special educational needs. Section 9.3 deals with their need for,
	"the support and advocacy of a vigorous parent--in their case the local authority".
	"Vigorous" is a good description. The parent of a child with special educational needs has to be persistent, determined and an optimist to cope with the system, which relies heavily on the parent playing an active part. For example, most requests for reassessment originate from parents. Appeals to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal with regard to the outcome of an assessment are the responsibility and on the initiative of a parent. Checking on the adequacy of statemented provision requires the parent to be present at, and involved in, annual review meetings. It presents a big challenge to social workers in respect of those in local authority care, particularly those who in effect live in residential boarding schools.
	IPSEA says that experience leads it to believe that it is rare for social services personnel to take part in the procedures I mentioned although there is little in-depth research on that. In the case of representation at tribunals, its impression seems to be backed up by research undertaken by Neville Harris of Liverpool John Moores University who found that appeals in respect of children in care featured very rarely in SEN tribunal business. There are probably two main reasons. The first, obviously and understandably, is pressure of work and perhaps also the fact that the child placed in a residential school may be seen, reassuringly, as essentially the responsibility of the professionals at that school. Secondly, there is the inescapable conflict of interest in a situation where a professional employed by one wing of the local authority social services department is placed in a conflict position vis-a-vis another local authority professional from the LEA. The problem becomes obvious when you think of the function of the tribunal. Is it reasonable or fair to the child for the same public authority to be making crucial decisions via its education department and to be responsible for initiating appeals against the same decisions via its social services department? I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, is nodding agreement.
	There might indeed be a human rights issue arising from this point. What would be very helpful is if the Government were to initiate some research into this area to establish the size and nature of the problem and explore the practical solutions; for example, the role of guardian ad litem, because of its independence, may be worth considering as a replacement for the social-worker-as-parent in respect of proceedings arising from the special educational needs of a child who is in public care. I should welcome the Minister's views on that, but if he cannot give an answer tonight I hope that he will agree to take it away and think about it.
	For children and young people with severe learning disabilities in public care there is a great need for the "vigorous parent" and for joined-up provision, particularly for those in distant residential schools. Mencap makes the point that children with very severe learning disabilities tend to stay in public care all their lives, becoming adults in care rather than achieving independence at 18. It is very important that they do manage the transition, achieve adult status and develop to their maximum potential. Where possible the parents' continuing involvement must be encouraged and made easy, but if this is not possible the public authorities should play an active part in the children's overall welfare, health, social needs, training, and work possibilities. It is important that their achievements are recorded whether or not they fall within conventional academic and vocational achievements.
	Much of the criticism of special schools by ex-pupils has come from pupils with abilities which were not recognised and developed because there was under-expectation. But much of the criticism of mainstream schools by parents of more severely disabled children has been based on the failure to recognise, foster and record achievements which are important for the child but do not give the school points on a conventional achievement scale.
	In the wider sense of education it is important that disabled children in care, particularly if they have not remained part of a wider family network, are helped to develop and maintain relationships and go on to live and perhaps work in whatever environment suits them. For those with very severe learning disabilities, this may be in small groups, sheltered homes, or whatever suits them and whatever they choose.
	I turn now to students with learning difficulties and disabilities leaving care. SKILL and the National Children's Bureau have identified three issues which they feel need clarification and attention from the Government and which reflect their and others' concern about the lack of joined-up and consistent delivery in provision both locally and nationally. First, there is the question of divided responsibilities. There is a need to ensure effective collaboration and bridge building between young persons' advisers allocated to young people leaving care under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 and Connexions personal advisers, especially for young people with disabilities who have more complex needs. It is a particularly important issue for young people in care in residential schools, especially where a regional boundary has been crossed and where there will be additional issues surrounding the duties of home and host agencies.
	Secondly, what can be learned from the experience of the Connexions pilots in relation to care leavers and young people with disabilities; for example, in helping them to understand their choices in relation to housing, education, opportunities, and sources of income? We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, of the amount of problems facing such young people when moving on. Will the Government evaluate the pilots? I hope that the Minister may be able to give an encouraging answer on this.
	Thirdly, and finally, I turn to the question of helping young people up to the age of 25 who have disabilities. Under the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 young persons' advisers have a continuing responsibility to care leavers up to the age of 25 whether or not they are in care. SKILL hopes that Connexions personal advisers will have the same responsibility to disabled people up to the age of 25 whether or not they are in care. I very much hope that the Minister can say something positive on this issue. I look forward to hearing his reply to all of our questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked a lot of very important questions. If the Minister does not have the time to answer all of mine tonight, I should be grateful if he could write to me. We all want to see that the education of children in care works as well as possible. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, how successful it can be. We hope that it enables such young people to become happy and fulfilled adults with much to contribute to society.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for introducing the debate and expressing her concerns so eloquently. Other noble Lords have highlighted a range of issues with great passion and insight. A common theme is that children and young people in care or leaving care face all kinds of difficulties and that the services often do not co-ordinate to meet their needs.
	I shall focus mainly on the need to listen to children and young people and take their opinions into account when planning services. Young people have clear views about many of these issues, for example what helps them to relate constructively to school, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said.
	Another Barnardo's report on young people's views of care shows that they are concerned about looking after money, employment, services, peer pressure and leisure activities as well as school subjects. Many feel that they do not receive enough advice on health issues and growing up. These concerns and anxieties can all affect performance in school.
	Children and young people in whatever context--school, home or care--have multiple needs, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said. They need stability, attention to health, to be talked to and given affection, the encouragement of communication skills, curiosity and literacy. All children have differing abilities or disabilities as discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and early intervention is important.
	Why consult young people? As a recent Carnegie report stressed, participation and asking what young people want contributes to self-esteem which in turn influences physical and mental well-being, young people feeling more in control and more likely to access the information and practise the skills they need to lead successful lives and to be more assertive with services. Consultation with young people can also improve the services they comment on or help to plan. It is a two-way benefit. The Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child both state the need for those in charge of children to establish the wishes and feelings of children. However, that does not always happen.
	Guidance on the education of children and young people in public care states:
	"Much of what is now known about the impact of care upon education comes from young people who have experienced the care system. They know what care feels like from the inside. Like other children they also know what interests, engages and motivates them, and what undermines their motivation".
	The recent Ofsted report on raising achievement of children in public care--this has been referred to several times--has a section on the views of young people, their teachers and carers. Young people identified quite clearly which factors affected their achievement. These included schools where the history of the young person is known, a teacher chosen by the young person who can act as a counsellor and keep confidences--confidentiality is a key issue--no attachment of stigma and the wish to be treated as any other young person with no allowances for bad behaviour, continuity of support from a social worker who is interested in schoolwork, a commitment from the carer to attend school events, support from the carer for homework and school activities, remaining in the home area rather than being moved from the school and sent away from friends and access to facilities available to young people who live at home, including a computer.
	The National Children's Bureau, in its helpful summary relating to the education of children in public care, acknowledges the effects of children's pre-care experiences but also draws attention to failures in the care system itself, including the organisation of systems around the child, the failure of departments to work together and the need for adequate skills in carers, social workers and teachers to support children. The failures of those systems can result in broken schooling, low self-esteem, low expectations and poor continuity of care; and all that will affect achievement in school.
	The Education of Looked after Children project within the Department of Health highlights guidance for social workers and foster carers. These encourage social workers and foster carers to,
	"take an active interest in young people's educational progress, champion their educational needs, celebrate their successes and ensure that they have access to the full range of educational opportunities".
	That is what young people want.
	The NSPCC recognises that the new Quality Protects plans do help to address the needs of children in care but so much is dependent on the local authority culture and communications between schools, LEAs and social service departments. I, too, would like reassurance on Quality Protects.
	There is surely a triangle of effect here: the care system, the school and the child. The child is in the middle of all this but sometimes the child is the last person to be consulted, if he or she is consulted at all, about what is appropriate education and welfare. There is good evidence that young people resent this lack of consultation and involvement and so resent those who make decisions for them. If this is how they feel, little wonder that they may be disaffected by what school has to offer.
	As one pupil in the Barnardo survey said:
	"I left school last year. First year you say, 'Look, I don't like this, I don't like that, I want something done about it'. Second year, nothing's done about it, third year, fourth year and I'm leaving school by fifth year and they've done nothing and they wonder why we don't like school?".
	What chance of achievement if that is the case? School tutors and special support for young people in care were mentioned positively as encouraging dialogue and motivation. Another pupil in the survey said:
	"I think school mentors are quite good because if you're having a bad time you can explain to your mentor and your mentor will have a word with the teacher".
	Young people in all circumstances need support at some time and confidentiality is a key issue.
	It is encouraging that the Government have set up the Children and Young People's Unit which will monitor the impact of cross-government guidance, lead the development of objectives for services and develop a unified strategy for children. It is also encouraging to see the vigour and energy with which so many children's organisations have expressed their concerns and will clearly not allow the needs of children and the need to involve them to slip from the agenda. I am grateful to those organisations for supporting me in my work on this issue.
	There are, of course, good and bad experiences of care, as my noble friend Lady Billingham said. Some young people in care succeed very well. In the Who Cares Trust report on the messages young people bring from care, one said,
	"I settled down to school every day and passed 10 GCSEs".
	But another said,
	"I have no qualifications and I face an uncertain future".
	It is worth noting that 50 per cent of the 2,000 children questioned in the report felt that being in care had improved their school performance. But what were their expectations?
	The Social Exclusion Unit--it was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Andrews--is carrying out a project to investigate how the educational attainment of children might be improved. This involves a series of questions, some of which will be put to children. Questions on the learning environment include: "What aspects of school have the strongest influence on the educational attainment of children in care?"; "How effective are pastoral support services?"; and "What training and support do teachers receive and need in supporting children in care?" It will be interesting to learn how children respond to those questions and what examples of good practice emerge.
	Consultations with young people by many young people's organisations make clear that young people do have practical ideas about ways of improving systems which affect their lives. They can, and should, contribute to the decision-making process. They are, after all, the ones who know best what makes systems supportive and what helps or hinders achievement. Do we consult them enough?

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I join with my fellow Peers in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for initiating the debate. I appreciated her overview of the subject. I have appreciated her advice in the past on the issue of vulnerable children in care. If I may say so, she does a tremendous job with regard to children in care and I hope that we shall hear from her on many occasions.
	I pay tribute to the Government's attention to children in care during the previous Parliament. There has been earlier reference to the Bills involved. I have an interest in this area as patron of Voice for the Child in Care which provides advocacy services for children in care.
	It is a timely debate because we are now in the middle of Parents Week. Many of the young people about whom we speak have not had good experience of parenting. I attended a seminar run by the National Family and Parenting Institute established by the Government. Dr Eia Asen of the Marlborough Family Services in London said that his experience was of families in poverty with several generations of dysfunction. The grandmother, the mother and the children all hurt one another and the family fails to move forward. We must intervene in the most effective way possible to break that pattern. Not only may the children of this generation grow up to go to prison but also their children may do so. Although I cannot give the figure off the top of my head, the number of fathers in prison is significant.
	I shall concentrate on residential social care workers and on how the children for whom they care may become models for good education. I shall concentrate on residential care even though only 12 to 15 per cent of looked-after children are in residential care. It is the Government's policy to encourage children to stay within their families as long as possible. That is good for the majority of children. However, those severely damaged before arriving in care are the most vulnerable of the vulnerable children.
	Professor Sonia Jackson was kind enough to write to me on today's debate. She emphasised that we must raise the educational standards of the carers if we want children to succeed in education. My father grew up with a French governess. When travelling abroad as children, we would hear our father speak French fluently. All my siblings have sought to learn a foreign language. My older half-sister speaks French fluently. I shall not comment on my other siblings' achievements. I have endeavoured to speak French. My only regret about the timing of this evening's debate is that it clashes with my class at the Institute Francais.
	When visiting a hostel, I overheard one of the residents, a young person of 17 or 18, saying to one of the volunteers, "You're always learning". I looked into this, and apparently the volunteer, when he was not engaged in making beds, opening locked doors or helping in food preparation, would take the Encyclopaedia Britannica from the shelves and read it. He would also ask the young people from Eritrea or Ethiopia about their background or learn a bit of their language. We would like children in care to see that sort of example.
	I recently spoke to the manager of a children's home with many years' experience. She said that many of her staff were semi-literate and that she has to use agency staff more and more. These young people stay for a few months, leave abruptly and are replaced by other agency staff. They often have very little education.
	From all that we have heard tonight, we know that those children often have serious difficulties. Your Lordships may have listened at the weekend to Arthur Ashe being interviewed by Professor Anthony Clare about his life. Arthur Ashe's mother died when he was six. As a consequence, he withdrew into his books and into playing tennis. At the end of the interview, he was asked what he expected when he died. Ashe had spent a lot of time visiting crematoriums and seemed to be fairly interested in death. He said that he expected to see his mother. When he was asked, "What would you ask your mother if you saw her?" He said, "I would not ask her anything. I would just want her to hold me."
	Many of the children whom we are discussing have lost contact with their parents. They have had bad experiences, such as having a hand held over a gas ring, or suffering sexual abuse by a parent. Their parents may have been killed in a conflict far away, or they may know that their family is being bombarded elsewhere in the world.
	The staff who work with these children need to be emotionally literate. One mental health nurse said that staff were not adequately equipped and were helpless to the needs of these children. I know from working with such children that it can be the most stressful experience if one does not understand what is happening. I remember Buffy House hostel at Centrepoint, which is for medium-support-needs children who are homeless and have been through many hostels. These young people come from difficult backgrounds. The staff at that hostel are supported by a psychotherapist who visits once a week and who has introduced psychological concepts and helped them in the work that they do. That hostel had the lowest sickness rate in the whole of Centrepoint's operation. The manager began life there with no qualifications whatever. Her family comes from Ethiopia and the last time I saw her she had just returned from visiting them there. She achieved a degree and an MSc in psychology. She is now directing the Cumberlow community, consisting of several children's homes.
	I welcome so much of what the Government have done, such as the introduction of an NVQ3 for residential care workers. That will certainly sort out some of the problems of literacy, or lack of it, among workers. I welcome the fact that Sir William Utting will develop a new residential care qualification and the concentration and outcomes for children, which Quality Protects has introduced.
	However, to make a significant difference, one must encourage more graduates to enter and remain in residential care work. Professor Sonia Jackson said that on the continent most people in residential care have a degree and further professional qualifications. In Germany 58 per cent of looked after children achieve the Abitur--the equivalent of A-levels. In this country, no record is kept of those figures because they are so minimal.
	There needs to be a clearer career progression for residential care staff. There should be more support for training and better remuneration. A shopping mall opened in north-west England and staff left a residential care home because they received £1.50 an hour more for working in a shop and doing regular hours than for working in the care system. The entry level must be akin to that for nurses and teachers. They should be allowed time to study and not become bound up in paperwork, although we understand why paperwork is needed. These workers often have their own children and they need time to study and develop.
	I have two questions to ask the Government. Will they consider funding the training programme of voluntary organisations which run children's homes and look after foster carers? There are some good examples of training programmes, but they are short of money. What are the Government doing to increase incentives for graduates to enter residential care work with children and to remain in that work?

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for initiating this extremely timely debate. We have had an excellent and wide-ranging debate, covering many different issues, but we have raised all the most important ones.
	I shall start with the statistics. There are 58,000 children in public care where local authorities act as so-called corporate parents. Only one in three of those children gets any GCSEs at any grade; only one in 20 gets five GCSEs with grades A to C, which is 5 per cent rather than the 50 per cent average in the country generally. Children in care are six times more likely to be truants than other children. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said that only 1 per cent go on to university.
	Among our rough sleepers, 33 per cent of them have been in care, as have 25 per cent of the prison population. Despite the fact that local authorities have the role of corporate parent, the Times Educational Supplement two years ago revealed that two-thirds of councils had no idea of the test scores of those in their care and two-fifths of them did not know whether any of those children achieved any GCSE passes.
	As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield said, it is a staggering set of figures of under-achievement. It is also a shocking set of statistics and shows a complete dereliction of duty on the part of a great many people. These children are among the most vulnerable in our society. They are in care because their own family relationships have collapsed. They have often been traumatised and it is vital that we give them the most that we can.
	Having said that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, explained, a great deal has changed in the past two to three years, and we must thank the Government for that. New guidance was issued in May 2000. Each child in care must have a personal education plan. Each school must have a designated teacher who is responsible for acting as an advocate or mentor to the child and to liaise with the social services and others. There will be a limit of 20 days in which local authorities must find an educational placement for these children.
	It is shocking that those children can be excluded from a school and have no education whatsoever for a year or more. Twenty days is now the limit for a new educational placement to be made. Local authorities are required to set up established routines for keeping in touch with those involved--the schools, the social workers, the foster parents and the health officials--and keep them informed of developments. Targets have been set for educational attainment. There must be personal education plans for each child. The target for this year, which I think was not achieved, was for 50 per cent of such children to gain at least one GCSE at grades A to G. By 2003, the target will be 75 per cent.
	These new practices are beginning to have an impact. Several of your Lordships have mentioned the Ofsted report produced in the spring entitled Raising Achievement of Children in Public Care. It contains a touching story of a girl from Bradford referred to as "G". It says:
	"G had been in care for six years and in that time had experienced five foster placements and periods in children's homes. She was very aware of her own difficulties but said that she could at last see a future. A teacher within the school acted as part-time counsellor and G reported frequent contact over the past three years. The counsellor has helped her to establish herself in a stable foster placement, had supported her through an abortion and two suicide attempts, had stayed firmly beside her through periods of rage and despair. In Year 11"--
	which was the GCSE year--
	"the counsellor was ensuring that all was in place for G to take GCSEs with predicted grade C results. The young woman expressed her gratitude to the counsellor; without the stability provided by the school and the regular contact with a listening adult, the outcomes could have been very different".
	That shows what a difference good practice can make. However, it is often difficult to fit the different pieces of the jigsaws into place. We need, to use that hackneyed phrase, joined-up thinking, but it is not always easy to get. I spoke at some length to one of the managers in charge of care for children in my county of Surrey. He talked about a new creative scheme that has been running in Surrey for the past 12 months which illustrates good practice. The High Ashurst project is an active learning programme that involves formal and social education of young people aged 14 to 16. It works intensively with six young people at any one time. The programme is individually tailored to meet the needs of young people who have multiple complex needs and have either been permanently excluded from mainstream education or cannot cope in such an environment. Under the Connexions service, they would fall into the higher need levels of 3 to 4. One of the key features of the programme is that young people are fully involved in the design of their own programmes. That picks up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about the importance of talking to the young people. Those programmes are reviewed on a daily basis.
	The service was initially established as a pilot through the Connexions start-up funding, which again shows how some of the different programmes that we have been talking about are rolling through. Due to the success of the scheme, it is hoped that it will be picked up by the Learning and Skills Council, with the European Social Fund also providing some finance.
	Let us hope that the project goes forward, but it provides for only six children out of the 600 that Surrey has to cope with. Many of those children are in foster homes, some of which are very stable, but many problems are still presented to the local authority. Four issues in particular arose from my conversation. The first is the culture of blame and the morale of the social workers. Many social workers working with children in care, and particularly in residential homes, feel that over the past 10 or 20 years they have been blamed and blamed again for the failures that have occurred. They recognise that on occasions they fail, but they feel that the failures are also failures of society, because the young people are so vulnerable and come from such traumatised backgrounds. They are highly disturbed young people with enormous behavioural and emotional difficulties. They often need the one-to-one help and guidance that the Ashurst programme can provide.
	Secondly, there are problems of recruitment and retention, particularly in areas around London, the Home Counties and the South-East. Housing is so expensive that it is very difficult to recruit good social workers in Surrey and to keep them in the children's service. The Ofsted report that I mentioned instances case loads of 17 to one and often higher. There is enormous stress among social workers. When one leaves, a colleague has to cover for them. That means that children do not get the consistent help from one individual that they need. That came through in the story that I told about the girl in Bradford. There are often lots of different individuals who deal with the children, struggling to cope with enormous case loads. They cannot give the children the attention that they really need.
	Thirdly, there are problems in getting the psychiatric help that the children need. They are not classed as mentally ill by the National Health Service, yet they are undoubtedly not mentally well, because they have enormous emotional and behavioural problems. They are not getting the psychiatric help that they need because the National Health Service says that they are untreatable. That poses enormous difficulties and puts all the burden on the social workers and those in schools to cope with the problems. They cannot look to the help from the National Health Service that we need to bring in with our joined-up thinking. That poses yet another problem, because resources are needed. The National Health Service does not have the necessary resources any more than social services departments or schools do.
	That leads to the final problem of school placements. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, mentioned the real conflict of interest between the social services authorities and the education services. The children may have been excluded from schools on a number of occasions and exhausted the range of schools in their locality. They are then taxied miles across Surrey to schools right out of their home environment, which is not necessarily the right way to solve the problem. There are also increasing numbers of foundation schools or specialist schools that these children cannot attend. Schools that are popular and good are full up and the children cannot be placed in them. The schools that are not full already have a disproportionate number of those with special educational needs and emotional and behavioural difficulties. That poses a great many problems.
	From these Benches we endorse many of the Government's new initiatives. We also endorse the request of the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Darcy de Knayth, for a re-examination of the concept of corporate parenting. We call for the establishment in this country of a children's commissioner, just as there is in Wales, to bang heads together and get things moving on occasions and to secure the joined-up thinking that we need. We ask the Government to consider the whole issue of the training and remuneration of foster parents, just as we also echo the thoughts of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in calling for better qualifications for those working in residential homes with children and for greater opportunities for training there.
	Lastly, but not least, we ask the Government not simply to blame local authorities for the failures of their social services departments and LEAs or to blame health authorities. The Government must ensure that those bodies have enough resources to do the job properly. Part of the failure of joined-up thinking comes from competition for resources. There are not enough resources in the health service and social services to provide what they ought to be providing. That is a real problem. If we wish the end, we should also will the means.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for introducing this debate with a speech of such genuine concern for the needs of children. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it has been an excellent debate.
	Meeting the educational needs of every child is a subject of enormous importance. Yet adequate provision for their education presents real challenges. Many of these youngsters face frequent changes of location. Many had experienced difficulties with their families, and corporate parental responsibility in the form of the local authority presents a unique situation. All those things can affect a child's ability to learn, concentrate and behave. Their progression through the school system is subject to conditions very different from those experienced by children living full time with their natural families.
	Recent figures suggest that those conditions do affect children's educational achievement. When measured against national averages, the educational attainment of children in public care looks poor. Seventy-five per cent leave school with no qualifications, compared with only 6 per cent who live with their families full time. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned two notable exceptions: Cheshire and Kensington & Chelsea. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, will be pleased to hear that the latter has a very good number going on to university.
	Disruption and instability are critical factors in educational under-achievement. Pressure on foster homes and a lack of appropriate children's homes can create difficulties for the placing authority. As a result, some children are moved to foster agencies away from their original area. Children and carers often assume that "moving on" is inevitable. Such a sense of uncertainty can lead to a degree of disinterest in education on the part of the child. Moving on can mean leaving friends, trusted carers and teachers. Often, moves take place regardless of educational commitments and add to the pressure of examinations.
	The education of children who live at home is determined and monitored largely by their teachers and parents. For children in public care, the situation is far more complex. The local authority has a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of each child in public care. The social services, as the placing authority and as the service responsible for designating a social worker to each child, should be closely linked with the local education authority. The LEA is responsible for ensuring a school place for each child and for monitoring progress, as well as issuing a statement of special educational needs where required.
	There is often a lack of understanding between education authorities and social services. Several noble Lords have made that point tonight. One manifestation of it is the apparent reluctance of social workers and schools to share information. That may be due to reasons of confidentiality. Some children are in schools where the head teacher, or the named teacher, does not know that the child is in a foster placement or a temporary placement in a children's home.
	Interestingly, children themselves have emphasised the importance of regular contact with a social worker who has a real interest in educational achievement. Presumably, that can be realised only where a social worker has a good understanding of the relevant education system and is in close contact with the school.
	The importance of understanding and support from a child's school cannot be overstated. Where a teacher has been appointed to handle all matters relating to children in public care, it has been successful. The teacher has access to all information relating to a child: where he or she is living, and the identities of the carer and the social worker. That information is updated regularly, even if the school placement remains the same. Difficulties caused by ignorance or misunderstanding can be resolved only by effective communication between local authorities and schools.
	The complex system of responsibility in public care can also affect children who have special educational needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, early identification is vital. It is most likely to be the parents or the teachers who identify such difficulties. They are able to do so because of their familiarity with the child. Some children in public care, sadly, are not identified simply because they lack that continuous contact. The shortage of social workers in nearly every local authority visited by the Ofsted inspectors, coupled with their heavy caseload of up to 17 children, means that genuine familiarity and a close relationship between child and social worker are rare indeed.
	Yet there is another dimension to this issue. In an article commissioned by the Who Cares Trust, the author describes how, until recently, problems were attributed to a child's traumatic childhood rather than to any possible educational difficulty. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in a very thought-provoking speech.
	The difficulties at school experienced by some children are a result of emotional abuse, low self-esteem or insecurity. But many, in addition to a difficult start in life, have a specific learning difficulty of some kind. Dyslexia, dyspraxia and other SpLDs have specific symptoms that are not necessarily characteristic of emotional disturbance. Dyslexia is manifested in both abilities and difficulties. Once identified, appropriate educational plans can be put into place.
	In the best children's homes, the children are part of a family and the care workers have a commitment to ensuring school attendance, supervised homework and support for school events. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield would agree with that. However, many homes cater for a wide age range, different abilities and different behaviour patterns, and that can affect children's attitudes significantly.
	In such circumstances, it is perhaps unsurprising that the difficulties are not picked up as rapidly as they might otherwise be. Problems arise for children in public care who are approaching the age of 16. Until recently, young people have usually been encouraged to move out of care into semi-independent residences on, or soon after, their 16th birthday. But, if they plan to continue beyond GCSE, it seems extraordinary that they should be encouraged to leave behind the framework of support that is so necessary for academic achievement.
	However, I understand that some local authorities are dealing with that issue. The appointment of the young persons' adviser is helping 16 or 17 year-olds leaving care--there are 5,000 each year--by ensuring that they receive the best opportunity to secure their futures. Every young person needs to be supported until it can be demonstrated that he is able to sustain himself within further education or in employment.
	Ofsted inspectors have paid particular tribute to,
	"examples of carers and teachers who on their own initiative have pressed for improvements for individual children. These children benefited from their efforts but it should not be a matter of luck whether the children encounter such a supporter in their school or care situation".
	The difficulties experienced by children in public care largely revolve around the substitution of the parent or guardian by the corporate parent. This is emphasised in almost every report on the education of these children. Many authorities have been successful in devising strategies to improve the quality of education for children in care, but to ensure that every child experiences these benefits we should continue to review the needs of children in public care.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, like many others I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, has initiated a timely and important debate. I should like to respond robustly to the very many interesting and important comments made by Members of the House, setting out briefly why it matters as an issue, and to comment not only on what the Government are doing (as noble Lords would expect) but also on why more needs to be done. I shall pick up some of the comments that have been made and feed those into the very serious process of reflection that the Government will be taking part in over the next few months.
	Why this subject matters has been set out clearly in the debate. The Government have noticed a slight improvement: now only 63 per cent of young people leave care with no formal qualifications, but we can take no comfort whatsoever from that figure. It is disastrous and appalling for those people and for society.
	The consequences of poor education are particularly serious, as was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, and others. Let me nail down those consequences relatively rapidly. Fifty per cent of those who leave care are unemployed; they are nine times more likely to be homeless and, finally and most significantly, 26 per cent of the prison population have been in care at some stage.
	As we know, poor education weakens life chances and increases the an individual's likelihood of having a miserable quality of life. That is morally significant and of concern to us generally in government, but it is also extremely expensive in terms of its economic and social costs. Let us reflect for a moment: if we were Utopian and could reduce the proportion of those in prison who have been in care to the average for the population generally, we would reduce our prison population by a quarter and our criminal costs by a quarter. We are talking in terms of billions of pounds of public money and a massive amount of social misery on both sides of the criminal experience.
	We have talked a little bit, perhaps not sufficiently as yet, about some of the causes: low expectation, a disruption in the pattern of experience and education, lack of continuity and support, frequent care placements, and difficulty in securing suitable places; the story goes on. Noble Lords have added to the list; and there are plenty of others. It is not difficult to find some of the reasons for what causes that tendency to failure.
	Perhaps I may switch to what the Government are trying to do. I am very grateful for the acknowledgement from many parts of the House of the seriousness and commitment of the Government to this endeavour. If we are serious about social exclusion, which I believe we are, we have to focus on this problem, perhaps above all others.
	There are probably six limbs to the target. The first is prevention. Noble Lords are well aware of the importance of early intervention--the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, mentioned that--and of how essential the Sure Start programme is to this, in trying to tackle child poverty at its roots even before the child is born. That is clearly a massive programme of work which time does not allow me to go into.
	Secondly, the Quality Protects initiative is absolutely central. Noble Lords will be disappointed to know that I cannot commit the Chancellor beyond March 2004, but the funding is there until 2004. If, as we hope, success and achievement on this most serious of problems can be demonstrated, no doubt there will be persuasive arguments as to why it should continue after that. As to the level of funding, £885 million is going in over five years. That is very significant funding. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, asked whether it was making significant progress. Yes, I think that it is, but more still needs to be done.
	We should not forget adoption and the push to try to get more children adopted. Those figures are rising, but they will never rise to the level that will crack the problem by itself.
	I turn now to the DfES/DH Guidance on the Education of Young People in Public Care. Noble Lords have mentioned the push for all schools to have a designated teacher; for all children in care to have personal education plans; and the need to secure suitable educational provision within 20 days. As part of supporting that, implementation advisers have been set up, drawn from the best local authorities, to try to retail the good practice as fast as possible around the country, as many noble Lords have mentioned.
	I could mention many other matters, but I refer next to the performance assessment of social services departments. That has not been mentioned, although the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, was right in saying how crucial it is that we know what is happening, that we know where there is poor performance and that we stimulate people to do something about it. The Government are committed to rolling out performance assessment of local authority social services departments to improve child protection so that we can identify where performance is good and where it is bad. We "incentivise" improvement and we support the process of improvement through, for example, the Performance Fund and the social care institutes for excellence.
	One of the most significant consequences of the performance assessment process will be to raise the political significance of looked-after children in many local authorities. This is not the stuff that wins or loses elections. I suspect that if one asked many leaders, good leaders, of local authorities, they would struggle to say how many children they have looked after in their authorities or what they are doing about it. I hope that the performance assessment programme will put an end to that.
	That is what the Government are doing, but it is quite clearly not sufficient given the scale of the problem and the importance of solving it. So perhaps I may start to set out not solutions but some thoughts for further inquiry over the next few months that have been stimulated by the quality of the debate and the contributions offered by noble Lords from all parts of the House. This is also the product of some very interesting discussions with officials in the two departments and with the Social Exclusion Unit.
	First, it is crucial that we are clear what works; in other words, that we have some evidence of where things appear to work better than not, and why.
	The Ofsted publication of April 2001 on the educational achievement of children in care was extremely thought-provoking and a good basis. Secondly, the National Federation for Educational Research will complete its study on what we can learn from care practice. Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, reminded us, when we are shaping future policy, we need more frequently and systematically to listen to young people. Finally and most usefully, we are given an opportunity to put what we have heard in the debate into practice by the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. It is undertaking a serious study in conjunction with the two main departments and it will report in May 2002.
	In the time available to me I shall not be able to respond in detail to all the interesting questions raised and suggestions made in the debate. However, I guarantee that the Government will look seriously at all the suggestions as part of the review process and that I shall respond in writing to specific questions which were raised.
	If we are clearer about what works, the next challenge is to ensure that the practice is implemented across local authorities and through government where appropriate. Perhaps I may suggest from what I have heard during the debate and from our studies what may matter most. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Astor of Hever, mentioned the word "stability". Common sense says--and it is reinforced by the research evidence--that if you are constantly moved in your experiences, in education and in support, the chances of being able to learn well are reduced and the emotional disturbance will be increased. Therefore, placement in the area from which the child originated appears to be fundamentally important.
	There are many reasons why that is difficult and I shall return to them. A stable care placement looks to be fundamentally important. Children should not move from foster home to foster home or from children's home to children's home. A stable educational experience is also important. Children should stay in the same school as far as possible throughout their care and educational experiences. It is also important to have the same social worker throughout--a social worker who knows one, is committed to one and is one's champion. Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, put this better than I can--there should be high expectations from the foster home or care home and those expectations should be reinforced in practice, day in and day out, by someone asking, "Are you doing your homework? How are you doing?", signalling that someone notices and cares about how your educational practice is working out. That should be turned where necessary into advocacy so that the system is challenged, as all of us have challenged the system on behalf of our children when we felt it was failing them.
	Therefore, stability in all those respects appears to be fundamental to progress. Yet that is not the practice which we are delivering in many situations. Noble Lords have pointed out why it is not being delivered: because we cannot get the social workers; or the foster parents do not have the mindset, experience or skill; or we can get foster parents in Kent or Norfolk but not in Southwark so we shift 12 year-old black girls into a completely alien environment, out of touch with their homes, friends and so forth. No wonder people fail.
	If stability in those environments appears to us in government to be central to success, we must no longer offer up the reasons why we cannot provide it; we must find solutions. Often they will need to be radical in order to make it possible to increase the proportion of children in care who receive a more stable educational and care experience. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords and to the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, for stimulating the debate. It has reinforced our determination to ensure that the Social Exclusion Unit study grapples successfully with many of the key problems.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I began by saying that it was a privilege to introduce the debate. As it has progressed, I have been deeply impressed not only by the personal recollections, knowledge and experiences which have been opened up to us today, but by the hard work that has been done on research. I have also been deeply impressed by the way in which the voices and experiences of the children have come forward in the debate. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords.
	I want also to thank the Minister for his open and frank statement about the Government's intention and for the seriousness with which he addressed the major issues of detail that have been raised. He spoke with conviction, frankness and without a trace of complacency when he acknowledged that we have more to do. At the end of such a debate, that is the best position to be in. He offered us the challenge of continuing to try to persuade him on several important issues. As he said, he is faced with a wealth of questions and suggestions. I am sure that each of us will try to keep him on his toes.
	My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Religious Liberty

Baroness Cox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the escalation of violations of religious liberty in many parts of the world and whether they will consider measures similar to those adopted by the United States Congress.
	My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who will contribute to what is sadly a timely debate.
	Religious freedom, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is so significant that many people are prepared to sacrifice their lives for their faith. However, more than 2 billion people are estimated to be suffering from restrictions to religious freedom. Many millions endure persecution that ranges from harassment, intimidation and discrimination to imprisonment, torture and martyrdom.
	The causes of religious intolerance are diverse: religious, ideological, political, social and economic. Broadly, we can identify three types of ideology that are responsible for most contemporary religious persecution. The first is atheistic communism. Despite the end of the Cold War, several communist regimes persist, and they all restrict religious liberty. Examples include China, Vietnam, Laos and North Korea. In China, the state permits religious practice only in state-controlled organisations, thus controlling their leadership, meetings and teaching. Those who refuse to comply pay a high price. Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, the Falun Gong and Christians are suffering oppression. Tens of millions are believed to be suffering harassment, fines, detention, forced labour, "re-education", imprisonment and torture.
	In Vietnam, many suffer for their faith. In April 1999, the government cracked down--again--on the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, with the arrest, harassment and intimidation of monks. A Buddhist monk, 57 year-old Thich Huyen Quang, was arrested and given excruciating electric shocks that left him with long-term after-effects. However, he still spoke out. He said:
	"Just as the bird on the verge of death sings its most poignant song, so I, an old monk on the threshold of departure from this world, cannot tell a lie: the Party cannot keep on persisting in policies that drive our people to poverty, and repress religions".
	In North Korea, the plight of religious believers is especially grim. A Christian Solidarity Worldwide team went to the North Korean border area and obtained details of the treatment meted out to Christians and others who are perceived to be a threat to the regime. That regime promotes the Juche ideology, which is a mixture of atheism and the virtual deification of the leader, Kim Jong Il. Anyone who does not worship him is interned in concentration camps, where Christians are often given the most dangerous tasks and their children are put in cages--within sight but out of reach. Atrocities are committed daily. On one occasion, a guard reportedly poured molten iron over a group of Christians to punish them for refusing to renounce their faith.
	The second category of religious persecution is associated with militant religious extremism. India is a contemporary example. Militant Hindu groups, some of which have close connections with the authorities, have attacked and killed members of religious minorities, such as Sikhs, Muslims and Christians.
	The third category of contemporary religious persecution is linked with the ideology of violent Islamism, which must be clearly distinguished from the religion of Islam, in order to forestall the development of Islamophobia and a backlash against the vast majority of peaceable Muslims.
	Islamism is an aggressive ideology that is committed to vanquishing other faiths, which are seen as being incompatible with its own version of Islam. It is associated with violence and terrorism, as in Sudan, Indonesia Afghanistan and, in recent weeks, the United States.
	In Sudan, the National Islamic Front, which is an Islamist regime, took power by military coup in 1989 and declared a jihad in its most militaristic form against all who oppose it, including moderate Muslims and traditional believers as well as Christians. The toll of suffering from war-related causes exceeds 2 million dead and 5 million displaced. I believe that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford will say more on that topic, for which I am grateful.
	Since 11th September, attention has focused on the Islamist Taliban regime. Its record of religious intolerance is notorious. Earlier this year, Hindus were required to wear a strip of yellow cloth to identify them, which echoes the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany. Eight western aid workers are currently under threat of death for allegedly trying to teach Christianity, and more than 50 Afghan national colleagues are detained for failing to report them. That case raises the general principle of symmetry of respect for human rights, including religious liberty. People who come to the Britain rightly expect their freedoms to be protected. However, in many of those people's countries, comparable rights, such as the freedom to build places of worship, are not accorded to others. Examples include Saudi Arabia, where Christians have virtually no religious freedom of any kind.
	I turn briefly to Indonesia. I recently saw in the Moluccas the tragic aftermath of religious conflict between Muslims and Christians, who had lived peaceably together. Both communities have suffered. But now, more than 2,000 Lasker Jihad warriors have poured into the region--many were from the Middle East and Afghanistan--with the intention of driving Christians away from that part of Indonesia.
	I could continue the litany of modern violations of religious freedom. They represent one of the most overlooked erosions of freedom. The United Nations has dedicated a convention, a treaty, a body, a special rapporteur, a day, a week, three decades and a world conference to racial discrimation but has dedicated very little to religious discrimination other than a special rapporteur.
	The United States has demonstrated its concern. In 1998 Congress established the Commission on International Religious Freedom to monitor religious freedom in other countries and to advise the President, the Secretary of State and Congress on how best to promote it. The appointed commissioners include leaders from different faiths and experts on international law, religious freedom and human rights. They travel extensively to investigate violations of religious liberty.
	The State Department also has its own Office of International Religious Freedom, headed by an ambassador-at-large. This office can designate countries of particular concern where gross violations of religious freedom occur; or other categories such as "particularly severe violators of religious freedom". The American Government can then apply a range of political and economic pressures.
	At present "countries of particular concern" are Burma, China, Iran, Iraq and Sudan. The Taliban regime is designated a particularly severe violator of religious liberty. The commission has recommended adding Turkmenistan, North Korea, Laos and Saudi Arabia to the list of countries of particular concern.
	Both the Office of International Religious Freedom and the Commission on International Religious Freedom produce comprehensive reports which have a high reputation. Some of their recommendations have been acted upon. Therefore there is a case for Her Majesty's Government to give religious freedom a higher priority in foreign policy.
	Perhaps I may offer some ideas for consideration: for example, the establishment of an office for religious freedom, the appointment of an envoy for religious freedom to investigate cases of alleged religious persecution and to prepare briefings for government departments and parliamentary committees, the monitoring of HMG-sponsored aid to ensure that its distribution does not preclude any people on the grounds of religion; or giving greater financial commitment to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Human Rights Fund for increased funding for human rights initiatives and indigenous NGOs working to promote and protect religious freedom, or perhaps giving FCO legal and technical assistance for governments such as those in the former Soviet Union, preparing legislation dealing with religious registration to assist them in developing the principles and policies of civil society, or requiring British embassies to report on religious persecution in countries where violations occur; or the promotion of a more coherent EU response to violations of religious liberty comparable to the agreed position on the death penalty; or, finally, the establishment of a religious liberty commission similar to that in the United States.
	I conclude by emphasising that many millions of people are suffering from religious intolerance and persecution which are the primary causes of most of the conflicts, oppression and man-made disasters in the world today. The terrible events of 11th September brought these tragedies to our own doorstep. There is urgent need to act now to monitor and check trends which could develop into further destruction of life and liberty. Nothing can bring back lives already lost, but we can learn from history and try to prevent comparable tragedies in the future.
	I finish with the words of a Buddhist monk in Vietnam, who speaks more eloquently than I can, on behalf of all those suffering from violation of freedom of religion and who look to us who live in freedom to use our freedom to help them in their hour of need. He says:
	". . . in Vietnam today, Vietnamese citizens have the choice between only two alternatives: either to go to prison or to toe the Party line. Those who toe the Party line must abandon their identity. They have mouths but cannot speak, have brains but cannot think, have hearts but cannot love their people or their country as they choose. . . Those who choose prison or re-education camp may think and speak freely--but only to themselves. What kind of freedom is this, where human dignity is totally denied?"

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Her question raises a number of important and sensitive issues at this time, with both the global and national context in mind.
	The right to choose and to practise one's religion is fundamental. Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that the enjoyment of religious freedom has also proven to be one of the most elusive and fragile of all human rights down the centuries. In 1612, for example, Thomas Helwys, founding father of the Baptist movement, wrote of the need to safeguard the freedom of the creature and the creator:
	"Let them be heretikes, Turks, Jews, or whatsoever, it apperteynes not to earthly powers to punish them in the least measure".
	The right of religious freedom has been incorporated more firmly into UK law since the autumn of 2000 through the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights--the declaration on freedom of thought, conscience and religion--reads as follows:
	"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance".
	The Churches strongly support this assertion of the right to freedom of religion and belief for reasons deeply rooted in a Christian understanding of the dignity of the human person and community. But as the noble Baroness has indicated, we do not have an equivalent of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, which seeks to monitor the abuses of religious freedom in different parts of the world. In recent years in the Sudan, for example, there have been--these figures have already been quoted--2 million dead and 5 million displaced by war, a toll of anguish that exceeds that of Rwanda, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia combined. The National Islamic Front regime continues to hold power by military force in a reign of ruthless oppression and terror. Its victims include moderate Muslims as well as Christian and traditional believers. It targets and slaughters innocent people, carries off women and children into slavery and manipulates humanitarian aid.
	The NIF has been indicted by the United Nations Security Council for its terrorist activities; it is known to harbour terrorist training camps; and it is accused of complicity with terrorist activities such as the bombing of the United States embassy in Nairobi. Therefore, it should not command any respect or support from the international community.
	I believe that the British Government must respond more effectively and robustly to the violations of human and religious rights by the NIF. At present the Government's position is one of critical dialogue which is widely seen by Sudanese people inside and out of the Sudan as long on dialogue and short on effective criticism. I believe, for example, that the Government should respect the spirit of the UN Security Council sanctions, such as restrictions on invitations to representatives of the NIF regime and not giving them red-carpet treatment. The Government should restrain from encouraging trade with the NIF and they should withdraw the DTI publication that implicitly encourages investment in the Sudan in ways that help the NIF. Furthermore, the British Government should explain why they have allowed the sale of dual-purpose supplies, capable of civilian or military use, to the Sudan with no end-user accountability.
	I believe that it is time for all those who have any concern for peace and justice to stand up for the victims in Sudan today and do everything in their power to bring an end to this largely forgotten, yet the world's greatest, contemporary manmade tragedy before the toll of suffering, death and destruction reaches even greater proportions.
	We belong to one world, but in raising concern about the escalation of violations of religious liberty in the Sudan and many parts of the globe, we would do well to exercise greater vigilance in our own country. One of the key issues is that of identity. For many people in Britain and Ireland today religion is one of the most important aspects of their identity. To build truly inclusive societies means enabling people of all religious faiths and beliefs to share fully as citizens in social, economic and cultural life. There is now evidence to show that significant groups of people feel that they cannot yet do this because of the unfair treatment that they experience on the grounds of their religion or belief. Respecting the identity of and not demonising those whose beliefs are different from our own is vitally important in our multi-faith, multi-cultural society.
	I think of incidents in my own diocese, which covers Essex and part of East London, involving mindless vandalism at mosques in Southend and Chelmsford. Although there have not been similar attacks in East London because of the much larger number of Muslims--there is strength in numbers--there have been humiliating incidents in which the hejabs which cover the faces of Muslim women have been pulled off. In another part of the country a teenage Hindu girl suffered a fractured skull when a gang of Muslim youths with hammers and axes rampaged through her school.
	Finally, I should like to touch on the anxieties felt by some of our fellow Jewish citizens in view of the heightened focus on Israel since 11th September. Only this week Jo Wagerman, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, expressed her worries about the growth of anti-Semitism since the New York attacks:
	"What is noticeable for those of us with our roots in the Jewish community, but our branches in the wider British community, is a very disturbing, knee-jerk anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism coming out. It isn't attacks in the street; it's the chattering classes; it's the dinner parties; it's in schools and in conversations".
	Legislation by itself can be largely ineffective in countering the violations of religious liberty in this country or elsewhere unless it is backed up by education, the encouragement of good practice and the continuing development of positive inter-faith relations; for example, the Encounter Youth Exchange Programme which brings together young people from different national, religious and cultural backgrounds, as in London in past weeks when young Jewish, Muslim and Christian people met. But to aid that whole process of education, good practice and partnership, I urge Her Majesty's Government to consider measures similar to those adopted by the United States Congress.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is quite right to draw our attention to religious liberty and freedom of conscience. I join with all other night-watchmen in thanking the noble Baroness for this opportunity to debate the intolerance that is all too common today. Despite the end of the cold war and the break-up of the Soviet Union, we are still far from reaching mutual respect and harmonious relations between all secular and religious groups.
	In this House yesterday we discussed internally displaced people in the United Kingdom; those expelled, often for sectarian reasons, from Northern Ireland. There are still some children who even now need police escorts to get to school.
	Today, we should reflect on attacks in Britain on mosques, synagogues and churches. The slaughter in New York and Washington can in no way justify attacks in our streets on people whose clothing shows their religious identity. Interfaith dialogue and co-operation is urgently needed now. We can develop it in this country. I am in full agreement with the sentiments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford.
	Overseas, aggressive intolerance often takes the form of destroying religious buildings and sometimes also their congregations. One recalls Stalin in Russia or Ceaucescu in Romania, while current examples include mosques in India, Bosnia and Macedonia, as well as churches, for example in the Sudan and Indonesia. Alarm bells, should start ringing as soon as ideology comes to power or insinuates itself among religious believers. Here I find myself strongly in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox.
	We need to consider how intolerance and ideology can be modified and reduced by both domestic and foreign policy. If our policy in the world is to have moral and ethical content, it must surely be concerned with basic human rights, among which religious liberty and freedom of conscience should be central.
	I illustrate this proposition by looking at examples drawn, first, from communist and former communist countries and, secondly, from the Islamic world. In both China and the former Soviet Union, there is a hang over from earlier periods whereby governments still insist that religious groups must be registered. From that they deduce that unregistered groups must of their nature be subversive or at least constitute dangerous cults. In China this results in persecution, imprisonment, forced labour and some abuse of psychiatric hospitals. The chief sufferers are of course unregistered Christians, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and the Falun Gong. In Russia it leads to problems for the Salvation Army--for example, in the city of Moscow, where the case of registration or non-registration is now sub judice--and to difficulties for many other minority religions which have been and still are reported by the Keston Institute.
	Will the Government, in both bilateral and multilateral discussions, work to convince China and Russia that registration is unnecessary? Reliance instead should be placed on the normal criminal law concerning public order, incitement, conspiracy and such matters.
	I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making clear today that the current campaign in Afghanistan is in no way a campaign against Islam or against Muslims. That is an important clarification.
	In the Islamic world we find that the Baha'i are usually regarded with deep suspicion because their founder came from a Muslim family and many of their members are former Muslims. In particular in Iran they have suffered persecution and discrimination. Apostacy--leaving Islam to join another religion--can have dangerous consequences in several countries that have, or aspire to have, an Islamic constitution. Other problems arise in several states when attempts are made to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims. We have recently seen severe loss of life and property destruction through intercommunal riots in Nigeria, where the Sharia question has been aggravated by recent world events.
	Islam is and always has been a missionary faith. For that reason, it is constantly gaining new members, both in Britain and elsewhere. I trust that it will come to accept that sometimes it will also lose members to other faiths. If we are to live in mutual respect, such give and take is of the essence.
	Will the Government raise all the issues which I have mentioned concerning Islam whenever they have the opportunity? Will they consult with institutions such as the Conference of Islamic States and the Commonwealth in order to achieve peaceful solutions? Will they continue to raise these matters with the appropriate organs and agencies of the United Nations?
	At home, will the Government take into account the benefits and advantages of integrated cross-denominational education--of which I have seen a good deal in practice in Northern Ireland--when they consider proposals and applications for new religious schools in England? If such new schools can be developed on an inter-faith or inter-denominational basis, they could become seed beds for better co-operation in Britain. Will the Government also encourage grant-making bodies such as the lottery boards, the Millennium Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and others, to support inter-faith dialogue, in particular when that is sponsored by voluntary organisations? Those are some of the ways in which home policy can reinforce foreign policy and make it more credible.
	I hope that, when he comes to reply, the noble Lord will be able to assure the House that regular consultations will take place between the Home Office and the Foreign Office on these matters.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating this debate. Her speech has been both wide ranging and profound. I shall confine myself to relevant developments in Russia. For my knowledge of those I owe much to the admirable Keston Institute, which has reported for so long on the situation there and on religious persecution. I may also have an advantage in that I have served both in Vietnam during the Vietnam War and in Russia when it was still the Soviet Union. I shall also discuss briefly what is taking place in what the Russians call their "near abroad"; that is, the states of Central Asia, which once formed part of the union.
	Both Russia and Vietnam were militantly communist and religion was persecuted. I fear that nothing has changed in Vietnam, where both the Buddhist and the Catholic faiths continue to be persecuted. When I served in Hanoi, the Catholic cathedral was opened once a year to allow the regime to give media coverage to an Easter service, as though that were a normal proceeding. In fact, the building served as a grain store for 364 days of the year. Now I imagine that they do not feel the need to make such cynical gestures.
	In Russia in my day and throughout the communist era, only a very brave handful of men and women practised their religion. Perhaps they went once or twice to one of the very few churches of the Orthodox faith, possessed a crucifix or a Bible. For all those acts, they often paid with 20 years or life in the gulags, the infamous camps which few survived. In those days, and until perestroika under Gorbachev, the full force of the KGB was put into eradicating religion, while at the same time manipulating the Orthodox church as a most useful propaganda tool abroad in such circles as the World Council of Churches by placing young KGB officers in the church as priests. To this day, the Orthodox church is an honourable exception, a faithful organ of the state in Russia.
	In his letter to the Soviet leaders in 1990, Solzhenitsyn wrote:
	"Your dearest wish is for our state structures and our ideological system never to change, to remain as they are for centuries. But history is not like that".
	And, indeed, at the height of the anti-dissident campaign, another admirable dissident, Lydia Chukovskaya, prophesied that, one day, there would be squares in Moscow named after Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov.
	For a while after the Berlin Wall came down, after Yeltsin saved Russia from a KGB coup, everyone thought that there would be total religious freedom in Russia and, indeed, such religious dissidents from the Gulag at Gleb Yakunin actually became members of the Duma. But the power of the nomenklatura, who had always ruled Russia, survived, and after a few years when religions of all denominations--Catholics, Baptists, Muslims--were all free to worship and even to proselytize, the 1997 law was enacted which effectively left only the Orthodox Church that freedom. The rest had to secure permission for such basic things as funding and finding a building in which to worship or for bringing in a Bible and religious literature. They had to be registered in order to do their work and they were under surveillance. They still are.
	Under President Putin, a former KGB officer of strong authoritarian tendencies, life for Christians in Russia is again becoming hard. They are bound by a hundred petty regulations and are often now regarded as potential enemies of the state. This year an American Protestant, after eight years working there, was expelled "as a matter of national security", and foreign missionaries are suspected by religious affairs officials, so called, of trying to weaken Russia by exploiting other alien spiritual values.
	In the countries of the near abroad, especially Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan, there is pervasive state control of religious literature--and this includes foreign Islamic literature--conducted by the committee for religious affairs. Article 19 of the 1998 changes to the religious law forbids the religious groups to import any religious publication unless they are registered religious bodies. But to gain that status they must have registered communities in eight of the country's regions. So far only six groups have achieved this status.
	Even if they secure permission, they can import only one book for each member of the religious group and must pay heavy customs dues. Books in Russian are allowed, books in Uzbek are not. The committee is obstructive and often raids homes to confiscate religious literature.
	I had innocently thought that the coming of the Internet would mean that there could be no closed frontiers, but it is reported that e-mails are scrutinised and those containing suspect religious words such as "God", "Church" or "Pray" are returned undelivered with the comment "message error". Freedom of religion is seriously at risk and to worship is becoming dangerous.
	I have spoken on this matter because it is essential that our Government recognise that the tide in Russia and the near abroad is turning against religious freedom. Trofimchuk, appointed by President Putin to head the Kremlin's council for co-operating with religious organisations, wants Russian state policy to put spiritual security on the same plane as national security, and he regards foreign missionaries as emissaries of their country acting against the interests of Russia. As is not unusual in Russia, like the USSR before it, the 1997 law says all the right, virtuous things about freedom of conscience, but it is in fact as arbitrary in its exercise of power as it ever was.
	I am concerned lest in our need for President Putin's support in the present crisis, and indeed for that of the Central Asian states, we should allow ourselves to be manoeuvred into condoning, and even appearing to support, deeply authoritarian and anti-religious positions. Putin's position over Chechnya, for instance, raises considerable problems since one of the most important and delicate areas of our co-operation with Russia, and of our future relationship with many Islamic countries, concerns our own attitude to religion. We must tread carefully. We shall be despised if we tacitly play down Christianity; we shall be respected if we make it clear that, while respecting other faiths, we cannot condone or support militant attacks on the followers of one religion by those of another or by the state. If we are persuaded to accept such behaviour for "reasons of state", we shall be betraying many simple and decent people, who ask only for freedom to practise their religion and their faith peacefully.
	Those who survived the persecution of the Soviet era and those still suffering in China, in Africa, in Vietnam, in Indonesia, must not be betrayed by a general feeling in the West that vague human rights are the same as faith. Osip Mandelstam, the great Russian poet murdered by Stalin, wrote of the connection between the loss of inner freedom and the abandonment of Christianity. Nadezhda, his wife, spoke presciently to Anna Akhmatova about the shadow of the future over a world until recent times still Christian. We are careful to respect other faiths, let us not fail to value our own. It will be a serious political mistake--dealing as we are with people of strong and sometimes even fanatical beliefs--if we do not have a well-defined position of positive belief in the tenets of our own faith.
	I understand that the FCO embraces religious policy and reporting within the rubric of human rights. I support the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, that there could be real value in the creation of a roving ambassador to deal specifically with international religious freedom. I suspect that he or she would be seriously overworked, but it would send a message to both the oppressed and the oppressors and could contribute very usefully to the briefing of Ministers entering upon negotiation in areas where religious freedom is an issue, as it is today in Africa--notably in Nigeria and the Sudan--and in Asia, as well as in China and Russia.
	Once, our aid was linked to contracts. We have ended that policy. It would be my hope, however, that we could link it with a withdrawal of aid, or a withholding of it, where religious persecution exists and nothing is done about it. I hope, too, that the Human Rights Fund can be markedly increased, specifically to help the victims of religious persecution from whatever quarter. Finally, I hope that the Foreign Office may feel an irresistible urge to give some money to the Keston Institute.

The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Question concerning the Government's response,
	"to the escalation of violations of religious liberty in many parts of the world".
	Having lived in Uganda under Idi Amin in the early 1970s, I can remember the shock of fear, but also my feeling of powerlessness, when a car carrying children home from school was ambushed by Amin's bandits and the children were hurled out of the car, including my five year-old daughter. It was not long after that Janani Luwum, whose image is now on the front of Westminster Abbey, 100 yards from here, was murdered, possibly by Amin's own hand. I recall the powerlessness that we felt then.
	In those years, I also had the great privilege of teaching young Sudanese in an African theological seminary. I saw at first hand the ravages and sufferings of the southern Sudanese: the Dinkas, the Azandes and all the rest. I saw the destruction of their homes, the affliction of the nomadic life, and the loss and injury to their children and families. The noble Baroness has been tireless in the cause of the southern Sudanese, as she is now in that of the religious communities in Indonesia. I support her totally in that work.
	It is, however, on the second part of the Question that I want to offer some thoughts, and perhaps a word of reflective caution. The noble Baroness asks whether the Government,
	"will consider measures similar to those adopted by the United States Congress"--
	that is, through its Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring.
	These measures by the United States Congress include a system whereby economic and diplomatic sanctions can be imposed on nations where clear violations of religious liberty are recorded. Under United States law, therefore, sanctions can now be instigated where there is,
	"widespread and ongoing persecution of persons because of their membership in or affiliation with a religion or religious denomination, whether officially recognised or otherwise, when such persecution includes abduction, enslavement, killing, forced mass resettlement, rape or crucifixion or other forms of torture".
	But recent history has taught us that the imposition of sanctions does not necessarily guarantee any improvement in conditions for members of persecuted minorities within that country. I experienced that myself when I was resident for some years in Uganda. Indeed, sanctions may even tend to increase community polarisation and international tension.
	While I do not totally exclude sanctions as a possible response in some situations, it is vital to set such action within the wider context of international relations, a context which also recognises the great importance of religious identity. I dare to say that in my view on the whole the United States legislation fails to do this. But may I point out that religious communities themselves, independent of governments, can in some places play a vital role in the building of confidence and understanding between their different traditions?
	One thinks, for instance, of the Crusades from Europe. One wonders whether those Crusaders would have conducted themselves with such fervour if their instigators had been more concerned with the teaching of the Gospels than with the preservation of Christian relics. In Wolverhampton, in my own diocese partnership, friendship, dialogue and inter-faith networks have achieved a great deal. Governments, too, can play a role by supporting programmes of education, dialogue, reconciliation and confidence building.
	After the millions of pounds invested in military operations in the Balkans, is it not perhaps possible that an equal investment is now required to help the peoples of that region to discover a security which is not based on their identity as Muslim, Catholic or Orthodox, but rather on knowing that Muslims, Catholics and Orthodox can and should live a shared identity as reconciled people of faith?
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has a well-earned reputation for defending the rights of Christians in Sudan. But dare I point out that the complexities of Sudan themselves remind us that violations of religious liberties are rarely simply a religious issue? They are so often wider than that. The Sudanese Christian boy who is enslaved and his uncle who is crucified are not only Christian, they are also black Africans and the inhabitants of grazing land which others wish to exploit for oil. The Buddhist whose shop is burned down in Jakarta is not only a Buddhist, he is also ethnically Chinese and economically successful in a community where poverty is a daily experience for many. In both those situations the imposition of sanctions for the violation of liberty can be only a risk-laden beginning. There are also issues here of economics, ethnicity, education and community building all requiring urgent attention.
	At this time when the eyes of the world are focused on Afghanistan is it not important that we seek to defend religious liberty but even more importantly that we do it in a way which avoids further polarisation, maybe unforeseen, and that we build, and seek to build, understanding and co-operation? Dare I add, with great respect, that I believe it is for our own Government, not the American Government, to determine our own response both to this issue and also to the other agonies of our world?

Lord Weidenfeld: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for not only allowing us to discuss this important subject but also for having come forward with ground breaking suggestions for action both nationally and internationally.
	The other day I was gratified to learn that the prestigious World Economic Forum in Davos will to a large extent devote its next session in February to the question of the fight against intolerance and the inter-faith discourse. The suggestions made by the noble Baroness should also be widely disseminated in the world's press.
	When Vice President Cheney warned us a few days ago that the war against terrorism might last a lifetime, he expressed the view of many thoughtful observers that this is a struggle sui generis, widely differing from the rather linear last two world wars or the more episodic recent campaigns in south-east Asia or the Balkans. In this war theatres of operations and alliances may shift and explosions or implosions in obvious and unexpected danger zones may erupt opening ever fresh fronts. But in this new scourge of mankind we face a battle of Muslim extremism: Islamism fighting mercilessly against the world of what it considers to be the "infidel" and its own moderate mainstream ranks. Copts are being persecuted in Egypt, the earliest breeding ground for the Muslim brotherhood, and in the Sudan. In Nigeria, only weeks ago, religious fanatics and common criminals massacred hundreds of helpless Christians in the city of Jos. The catalogue of persecution and atrocities is much more copious.
	The tragedy is that these persecutions are propelled by inflammatory sermons in the mosques and hate-inducing learning materials in schools, not to speak of press and television. They all feed on one another. If we seriously wish to break the cycle of prescribed intolerance and hate leading to terrorist action we must focus on the breeding grounds: the classroom and the pulpit. We have, alas, abundant evidence of their output. In sampling the past few weeks' Friday sermons broadcast by the Palestinian Authority Television in Gaza, we find that the faithful were commanded by Sheikh Ibrahim Madhi in these words:
	"This war between us and the Jews will continue to escalate until we vanquish them and enter Jerusalem as conquerors, enter Jaffa as conquerors. We are not merely expecting a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital but an Islamic caliphate".
	Later Sheikh Madhi said:
	"Those who die not for the sake of Islam will end up in the fires of hell".
	When the most senior Islamic authority of the whole region, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Akram Sabri, was questioned recently in an interview as to why mothers cry with joy when they hear about their sons' death, he answered:
	"They willingly sacrifice their offspring for the sake of freedom. The mother is participating in the great reward of the jihad to liberate Al Aqsa".
	He continued:
	"I talked to a young man, who said, 'I want to marry the black-eyed beautiful women of heaven'. The next day he became a martyr. I am sure his mother was filled with joy about his heavenly marriage".
	That Holocaust denial, with medieval horror tales of the blood libel, are the daily fare of lectures in school and prayer houses is only too well known; but the chiming in by political leadership with proclamations of implacable hatred may explain why, despite all public protests to the contrary, the real will for peace is lacking so widely in many circles in the Islamic world. In Syria, where the highly centralised Baath Government have been in power for a generation, the systematic teaching of hate and contempt for the Jewish and disdain for the Christian faith is waged with great intensity. At a meeting in Damascus last week with a delegation from the British Royal College of Defence Studies, the Minister for War, General Tlass, said that the Mossad planned the ramming of the two hijacked airliners into the World Trade Centre towers as part of a Jewish conspiracy. He told the British visitors that the Mossad had given thousands of Jewish employees of the World Trade Centre advance warning not to go to work that day. A manual from the Ministry of Education prescribes courses for all grades to instil deep hatred for all things Jewish and contempt for the Jewish religion--a contempt which President Bashir Assad expressed in the presence of the Pope.
	If I again raise the question of those school books, and am still awaiting a reply from noble Lords on the Front Bench, it is because I believe that we are in a questionable moral position. If we wish to forge an alliance against evil, we must not neglect to address ourselves to its springs and roots and use our influence. If this coalition is to survive the first round--the search for Osama bin Laden and the fight against the Taliban--those whom we accept or even embrace as road companions should be given a clear choice of pausing, reflecting and making appropriate amends--preferably system changes. If they do not do so, the inexorable logic and dynamics of events will lead inevitably to a brutal and bloody collision course. Surely our Government, who have so far steadily and credibly vowed to conduct an ethical foreign policy, could use their clout and break a lance for the respect of religious freedom. That means initiating or taking part in some form of international action against governments who flout this freedom with callous disregard and consistent brutality.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, nobody has a better right to speak of violations of religious liberty than the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She has faced danger and great discomfort in her work to support the oppressed people of Sudan and we are grateful to her for introducing this short debate.
	My noble friend Lord Avebury would, in the normal course of events, have replied to this debate on behalf of my party, but unfortunately his accident on his way to the House some three weeks ago has turned out to be more serious than was originally thought. Although he is making a good recovery, it will be a few weeks before he is able to take his place in your Lordships' House again.
	I speak from a somewhat unusual viewpoint because I have no religious belief, although I have a mixed Jewish-Anglican background. I very much respect religious beliefs and have many friends who are believers, including ministers of religion in both the Christian and Jewish faiths. Two personal friends sit on the Bishops' Bench in your Lordships' House.
	I believe that religion has done a great deal of good in the course of history, but it has done quite a lot of harm, too. There have been far too many wars of religion; we have not had many wars of scepticism. In England in the Middle Ages, the Christian community was responsible for the murder and expulsion of the Jews. In the 16th century Protestants burned Catholics and vice versa. Appalling atrocities were committed in Ireland by Cromwell, who was, ironically, a friend of the Jews and permitted them to return to England. Until well into the 19th century we discriminated in law against Catholics, Jews and Nonconformists.
	Religion tends to create intolerance too often, especially among people who believe that the Torah, the Bible or the Koran is the literal word of God and cannot be questioned or modified. It is true, too, that much of the worst intolerance has come from those who are members of secular creeds, such as Marxism. We saw the persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union. I remember many years ago being in Smolensk and wanting to see the cathedral. Intourist arranged a guide to take me there. She was a Soviet woman who was unquestionably a sister of Rosa Klebb. Towards the end of my visit, she asked whether I believed in God. I hummed and hawed and said that I did not. She asked why I did not stay in the Soviet Union. She clearly thought that unbelievers in Britain were subject to the same persecution that believers suffered in the USSR.
	The end of Communism in many countries has meant that secular persecution is less widespread. The situation in Russia for non-orthodox groups is still far from perfect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, but at least it is better than it was 30 or 40 years ago. The situation in most of eastern Europe is very much better.
	A high proportion of violation of religious liberty flows, as it always has, from persecution of one faith by another. All religions should question their own attitude to others. We have seen the persecution of the Baha'is in Iran, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. There have been campaigns by Christian fundamentalists in the USA against those who do not share their beliefs about abortion. We have seen Muslim attacks on those who have abandoned the Muslim faith; we have seen Hindu attacks on Christians and Muslims; and we have seen Protestants and Catholics hating each other in Northern Ireland.
	Freedom of religion is an essential human right, protected by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, equivalent provisions in the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights and again stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
	I have some reservations about setting up a separate government commission on international religious freedom, or creating a special government envoy, as in the USA. Freedom of religion is, of course, a central part of the structure of human rights, but that structure also includes freedom of speech, freedom of association and many other essential rights, such as the right to family life and the right to participate in free elections.
	The Foreign and Commonwealth Office shows concern for human rights. It has just published a most interesting and valuable annual report on that subject. It does not always put human rights as high up the agenda as some of us would wish, but it undoubtedly now takes human rights seriously. It should continue to look at human rights together. It is inappropriate for a government department to set up a separate commission to deal specifically with religious liberty. If members of faiths on their own initiative set up an independent inter-faith group to report on violations of religious liberty, that would be welcome, but the initiative should come from them, not from the Government.
	I shall finish with a brief story about my wife. She attended a school run by the Church Missionary Society--admittedly this was some years ago. When she was about 15, the headmistress told the girls at a school assembly, "Next term we have a Muslim girl coming to the school and you must all try to convert her". At that point, my wife got up and said, "How do we know that we are right and she is wrong". She says that that is the bravest thing that she has ever done. She was nearly expelled as a result, although she ultimately became the head girl of the school.
	There is no answer to my wife's question. None of us can be certain that we are right and that members of other faiths or none are wrong. That is the attitude that secular governments should take to religions and that members of one faith should take to those of another. If that spirit can be pressed forward, we will see a reduction in violations of religious liberty.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for introducing what she rightly said is a timely debate. Her speech was very moving, as one would expect from someone who cherishes and works tirelessly for human rights and religious liberty. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield on his stamina in speaking in and listening to three debates, one after another.
	As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said, violations of religious liberty are one of the most overlooked erosions of freedom and, sadly, they have become much more numerous over recent years.
	My noble friend Lady Cox started her speech by emphasising the importance of religious liberty. The right to choose and practise one's religion should be a fundamental one, but, tragically, it has proved to be one of the most elusive and fragile of all human rights through the centuries. A figure of more than 1 million people in prison for their faith is deeply shocking. My noble friend set out the underlying causes of religious intolerance and gave the House examples of countries that restrict religious liberty or where religious persecution is associated with militant religious extremism.
	The interim report of the UN Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, dated July this year, mentions religious intolerance and discrimination in a number of other countries as well. I was particularly disturbed to read that Malaysia--a country that I am especially fond of--now apparently imprisons people for converting from Islam to Christianity and refusing to repent and return to Islam. I hope that the examples given will not be repeated in that country.
	As my noble friend Lady Cox said, India continues to cause concern. Religious minorities continue to be subjected to unprovoked attacks in certain parts of the country. Figures released recently by the Indian Government show that there were over 400 recorded attacks on Christians alone in the past two years and that more than 30 people were killed. It is estimated that many other attacks go unreported. One Indian human rights organisation calculated that the true figure is nearly twice as large. Recent incidents include a nun who, in August, was shot in the face by four Hindu militants in Madhya Pradesh state, and a priest who suffered serious injuries after being attacked by more than 40 Hindu militants near Bombay.
	The growing menace of militant Hindu groups, who are not representative of Hindu opinion as a whole in India, is of grave concern. I wonder whether the Government will press the Indian Government to curb such groups and to cut the links between the leading member of the coalition government, the BJP, and some of these shadowy extremist organisations.
	In Nigeria, the situation continues to be worrying, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. A number of northern states have implemented Sharia law and a number of others are considering doing so, too. Christians and non-Muslims in those states feel isolated and vulnerable. My noble friend Lady Park gave the House a fascinating insight into religious intolerance in Russia and the "New Abroad". The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, mentioned Syria, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us of the religious intolerance between Catholics and Protestants on our own doorstep.
	Can the Minister tell the House what is the Government's response to the rapporteur's conclusions and recommendations? I was somewhat heartened by certain aspects of the rapporteur's comments. While intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief continue in many parts of the world, there were some positive situations and improvements. My noble friend Lady Cox referred to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, which includes leaders from different faiths. Can the Minister explain the Government's views on consultation with non-governmental organisations, including religious bodies? What steps will the Government take to continue dialogue on international matters with such organisations?
	In this country, we are concerned about reports of crimes motivated by religious hate. It is fortunate that no one was hurt in the recent incendiary attack on a mosque in Edinburgh. We on these Benches are extremely sympathetic to the aims of the legislation to combat religious hatred. However, there needs to be a balance between protecting the rights of religious groups and maintaining freedom of debate and free speech.
	Before legislation is rushed through, a serious discussion must take place between different religious groups and, indeed, those without religious conviction on how legislation can reconcile those two aims. There is a very real risk that poorly drafted legislation will impinge on freedoms of expression.
	I look forward to the Minister's response to the many questions that he has received. In particular, I endorse the question raised by my noble friend Lady Cox on British embassies in countries where religious violations occur. I should very much like to see the embassies include those violations in their annual reports.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, this has indeed been an extraordinarily well informed and wide ranging debate. Obviously I have been taking notes as I have been going along. The countries referred to have included China, Vietnam, North Korea, India, the Sudan, Russia, Uganda, Egypt, Nigeria, Syria, Northern Ireland, Malaysia, and I may have missed one or two. I have to say to your Lordships that 12 minutes to respond to all those countries' problems is beyond the capacity of the Government Front Bench. However, I shall do the very best I can to deal with some of the issues raised. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on raising this issue. It is one on which I know she campaigns tirelessly.
	I shall refer to certain speeches as I go through the various comments that I want to make, but perhaps I may be allowed a little prejudice of my own and refer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, who happens to be my own right reverend Prelate. He spoke astonishingly movingly on the basis of his experience in Uganda.
	Our starting point is familiar. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
	"Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion".
	However, as we have heard today, reality can fall tragically short of the standards set down in international law. Despite improvements made in a number of countries, many believe that the world-wide trend is towards increased discrimination against minorities. The Government are committed to upholding the values that underpin our own security and prosperity--values of human rights, democracy and fundamental freedoms. That includes, I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, the right to change one's religion, which is obviously fundamental. We unreservedly condemn the persecution of individuals because of their faith, wherever they are and whatever religion they practise.
	At the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in 2001, all European Union member states co-sponsored a resolution to work to eliminate all forms of religious intolerance. Intolerance is not the monopoly of any particular state or religion or indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, the monopoly of any particular point in history. It can occur with monotonous geographic regularity and historically with wearying regularity.
	Following the terrorist attacks on 11th September it has become clear that, regrettably, there are some people in Britain who have sought to stir up hatred against members of religious groups, especially Muslims, a point to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred. As a result the Government are considering proposals for legislation that will make it a criminal offence to incite hatred against members of religious groups.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, quite rightly stressed that we must be very careful how that is phrased and how it is dealt with, and obviously it must be properly scrutinised. Even my limited experience of your Lordships' House tells me that there will not be any lack of scrutiny when the legislation comes to be considered by this House.
	In parallel with everything that goes on here at home, we will continue to work actively abroad to promote understanding and tolerance. I can reassure your Lordships that our missions overseas are working closely with local non-governmental organisations--the importance of NGOs was again a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I wholly endorse that--to achieve specific human rights objectives in many countries of the world.
	One example of the practical work that they are engaged in is an initiative in the southern Philippines--one country that was not mentioned by anyone this evening--to increase understanding, respect and tolerance amongst local religious groups as an essential first step towards resolving conflicts there.
	In all of our actions we work closely with the European Union, the United Nations, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to some of the measures taken by the United States in combating violations of religious liberty. That matter was also referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. We share with the United States a common commitment to universal human rights standards. But the approach of our two Governments inevitably differs, given our different constitutional structures. The noble Baroness suggested the establishment of an envoy for religious freedom and a commission with representatives of different faith communities. This Government greatly value dialogue with those outside government and have worked hard to strengthen it.
	For that reason, Ministers and officials regularly discuss human rights concerns in a range of countries with non-governmental groups. For example, as part of our preparations for the 2001 United Nations Commission on Human Rights, my good honourable friend, John Battle, the then FCO Minister with responsibility for human rights, held detailed discussions with UK-based NGOs. Furthermore, officials at the FCO's Africa department met staff from the office of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford before his visit to Nigeria. I can also tell the House that arrangements are in hand to hold the next meeting of the FCO's contact group on religious freedom in the near future. That contact group aims to enrich the foreign policy debate through discussion with NGOs and religious organisations.
	We believe that the correct approach for this country is to reinforce the existing mechanisms which we have when dealing with the issues which we all agree are important. I echo the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield in saying that ultimately it must be our government of whichever political persuasion who make decisions which we think are right for our country in the light of our particular circumstances and the traditions of our foreign policy.
	Our approach is to treat religious freedom as an integral part of our foreign policy. Human rights are inter-related and interdependent, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, stressed. In practice, violations of the right of freedom of religion are often accompanied by violations of other rights; for instance, of freedom of speech and association, freedom from torture and the right to a fair trial. Protecting and promoting freedom of religion is most effective when it is done in the context of the promotion and protection of other human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, stressed that in particular in the context of the Middle East.
	Therefore, we emphasise that human rights are everyone's business. That is why we have made human rights an essential element of training for policy staff, including ambassadors and staff serving overseas as entry clearance officers or managers. All decision-makers in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate receive training on the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1999 and the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes freedom of thought, conscience and religion. We have developed human rights strategies to promote human rights in many countries overseas, so we can target our efforts where they have most effect. With advice from our embassies overseas and the people working in them, we must of course ensure that we tailor our contacts and discussions to the particular needs of the particular states, including all those referred to in today's debate. We are expanding our network of human rights advisers to our missions overseas. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, may be pleased to know that we are already increasing funding for the FCO's Human Rights Project Fund for the next financial year.
	Aid and international development were mentioned by a number of speakers--indeed, several noble Lords who have contributed to today's debate have been most active in the international development legislation currently going through this House. The strategy of the Department for International Development on realising human rights for poor people makes it clear that in order to eliminate poverty, development should promote inclusive societies based on the values of equality and non-discrimination and the promotion of all human rights. That means that British development programmes support the inclusion of all groups, whatever their religious persuasion or cultural background.
	The Government were pleased to publish their fourth annual report on human rights on 17th September as a demonstration of our openness to scrutiny. The report sets out some of the action that we have taken to promote religious freedoms in, for instance, Turkmenistan, Pakistan and China. The European Union also produces an annual report on human rights, which highlights some of the work that has been carried out to promote human rights, including freedom of religion.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred to the need to monitor international religious laws. European Union members and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe regularly consider new legislation on religious registration. Relevant issues of concern were raised by several noble Lords this evening. Where appropriate, we remind governments of the need to comply with their international obligations and to uphold freedom of religion. In some cases, we offer technical assistance. For example, the UK funded the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights--an institution of the OSCE--in its discussions with the Government, parliamentarians and NGOs in Kazakhstan. That resulted in a number of changes to their new draft law on religious organisations, to bring it closer into line with OSCE standards. The UK participated in an OSCE seminar on freedom of religion and belief in June this year, which considered, among other issues, the registration of religious groups.
	We will continue to use our influence in the world to promote human rights, including religious freedom, and to confront oppression and human suffering wherever it appears. We defend human rights for others because those are the values that we demand for ourselves and which are integral to the kind of society in which we all want to live.
	In conclusion, the Government continue to take very seriously indeed the issues that have been raised in this debate and the fundamental principle of religious freedom that underpins them.

House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eleven o'clock.